PDA

View Full Version : In Defense of the People that actually enjoy AOS



RandomThoughts
26-07-2015, 12:32
I've seen some pretty bad insults thrown around here over the last few days, so please let me say this:

While I personally consider AOS a failure as far as the game itself is concerned, I think there is an actual target audience out there that can and will enjoy the game, and everyone telling them they have the "wrong kind of fun" is not just wrong but also rude:

1) The hobbyist: They like the models (or perhaps the fluff), it's what counts for them, the quality of the rules don't matter to them. Absolutely legitimate POV.

2) The light-hearted fun guys: Doesn't take gaming too serious, likes what AOS has to offer: Quick, fast, over-the top entertainment, a game that requires less effort and thinking and is more a spectacle where all kinds of goofy things happen. If that's what you want and the price of the models doesn't discourage you, go ahead, absolutely legitimate!

3) People that like to make up their own rules and scenarios. Who need or want a general framework and nothing more and will do the rest themselves - and enjoy it! Again, absolutely legitimate!

4) Kids in general. Limited funds, unable to purchase whole armies, might own a hodgepodge of random models that they still want to use in their games; more willing than us to accept the idea that the guy who got a dragonlord on a mighty dragon for christmas has a distinct advantage now over other players that do not - when I was that age Magic was just becoming popular, and for a teenager it was pretty much buy to win - you had the cards you could afford, either from random boosters or from trades with your mates, and that was it.

So yeah, before insulting AOS-likers as braindead GW-zombies, perhaps take the time to ask them what they like about the game and why the things that bother us so much don't really bother them.

You know, there's always more than one side to each story.

217773

strongbow
26-07-2015, 12:39
Agreed, well said :)

jet_palero
26-07-2015, 12:49
I've seen some pretty bad insults thrown around here over the last few days, so please let me say this:

While I personally consider AOS a failure as far as the game itself is concerned, I think there is an actual target audience out there that can and will enjoy the game, and everyone telling them they have the "wrong kind of fun" is not just wrong but also rude:

1) The hobbyist: They like the models (or perhaps the fluff), it's what counts for them, the quality of the rules don't matter to them. Absolutely legitimate POV.

2) The light-hearted fun guys: Don't take gaming too serious, like what AOS has to offer: Quick, fast, over-the top entertainment, a game that requires less effort and thinking and is more a spectacle where all kinds of goofy things happen. If that's what you want and the price of the models doesn't discourage you, go ahead, absolutely legitimate!

3) People that like to make up their own rules and scenarios. Who need or want a general framework and nothing more and will do the rest themselves - and enjoy it! Again, absolutely legitimate!

4) Kids in general. Limited funds, unable to purchase whole armies, might own a hodgepodge of random models that they can still use in their games, more willing to accept the idea that the guy who got a dragonlord on a mighty dragon for christmas has a distinct advantage now over other players that do not - when I was that age Magic was just becoming popular, and for a teenager it was pretty much buy to win - you had the cards you could afford, either from random boosters or from trades with your mates, and that was it.

So yeah, before insulting AOS-likers as braindead GW-zombies, perhaps take the time to ask them what they like about the game and why the things that bother us so much don't really bother them.

You know, there's always more than one side to each story.

217773

They could have done all that with WFB 8th edition by just ignoring rules and making up their own. Which AoS encourages (almost requires) people to do anyway.

And seriously, AoS is a poorly designed game. There are so many BETTER games out there, that cost less. If people like AoS, fine whatever, but I think most of them just lack exposure to better games and live in a GW bubble.

When you see people eating hamburger and talking about how good their steak is, you gotta wonder.

plantagenet
26-07-2015, 13:02
AoS is a huge change on a large number of fronts that I can understand have rubbed people the wrong way.

In large what you say above I agree with. Point 4 I would argue is being undermined by price point of the new releases.

I think the biggest part of the issue is that for AoS to exist GW felt that warhammer had to die. If the two could have existed side by side then the venom between the groups would never have materialized. However with the way it was done it feels to people like it was being forced on them. Now people say but GW did release rules for your armies but if war throne did this and kings of war are doing this hell if 40k or infinity did this would you say that means the game is a continuation of fantasy? The truth is warhammer finished and as such AoS should just be judged as a new product not as a continuation of an old one.

Look at the art for AoS , it's great now look at it compared to fantasy still good but completely different. The layout style now is no longer GW. It feels very Rackham like in its presentation now. The cover of the latest book for AoS again is stylistically very different with the images having a very different feel to what went before.

AoS as others have pointed out feels more like the marvel films Asgard world where the tech looks kinda of ancient but is actually more advanced than anything we have today. Very cool and I see the appeal, for a lot of people into a world like this. For what ever reason though I miss my game of thrones/lord of the rings swords and sorcery world and of any ever done in history I would argue the warhammer world was the best and most complete of them all.

Griefbringer
26-07-2015, 13:03
I am of the opinion that anybody should have the right to enjoy any game they like, and be able to freely game and discuss it in public, without being constantly expected to defend their preferences, or being harassed with endless suggestions to "go and play game X instead".

Also I am of the opinion that anybody should have the option to decide not to play any game that they do not find interesting, without being constantly expected to constantly expected to defend their choice, or being harassed with endless suggestions to "go and give it one more try".

However, if you do not enjoy a certain game and choose to not to play, it is still rude and impolite to wish ill on the game in public (eg. "I wish that game X would do so badly that the manufacturer would terminate it with extreme prejudice"), especially in the presence of people who might actually enjoy the game. For it might be very upsetting for them to find it being discontinued.

And even if it should happen that you find out that a game that you did not like or play has been discontinued, it is still rude and impolite to rejoice in public about it, especially in the presence of people who have enjoyed the game deeply and are now highly upset.

Yvain
26-07-2015, 14:23
If you look around the internet you will see a lot of the pro AoS people are just as trolly as the most anti-AoS people. For every reasonable player/poster there are plenty of AoS is so much better good riddance to fantasy its players were X,Y,Z. The main problem people are running into is that this is actually the Warhammer Fantasy Battles board and Age of Sigmar is not WFB. In essence, WFB players are unofficially being told to GTFO by Games Workshop and let the AoS player live in their house and have all their stuff. If you only played WFB, eventually there won't be a place for you on Warseer, Dakka, or any GW only sites like this.

There is a second problem with being an AoS supporter on any board right now and it has nothing to do with you enjoying the game and that is GW. GW is essentially the EA of miniatures games. I actually hope AoS fails because it is really bad for the hobby and it has all the worst policy ideas typical of GW. AoS stuff is has upped the price by 10 dollars for 5 models. They have released a bunch of pointless accessories for insane prices. They are still no communicating with anyone. Their rules set has a ton of problems in it. The list goes on and on.

However, the big one is they just killed another game, when they really didn't have too. There was a rumor a while back of AoS being a two way game one where you could play WFB style or skirmish. This is basically all they had to do to keep veteran players from rioting in droves, but it didn't fit their model of get people to buy as much new stuff as possible. They screwed their customer base again. If AoS does fail and they discontinue it, I have no sympathy for you because really that is what we get for supporting GW stuff. If it fails and they may re-evaluate their business model, then everyone wins in the long run.

Kegslayer
26-07-2015, 14:40
They could have done all that with WFB 8th edition by just ignoring rules and making up their own. Which AoS encourages (almost requires) people to do anyway.

And seriously, AoS is a poorly designed game. There are so many BETTER games out there, that cost less. If people like AoS, fine whatever, but I think most of them just lack exposure to better games and live in a GW bubble.


I play warmahordes, batman miniatures game, 40k, Malifaux, guild ball, deadzone among others. I also enjoy AoS so safe to say I know other games are out there and I certainly dont live in the "gw" bubble. Why do I enjoy AoS you may ask. Well for one thing my misses who doesn't do models actually showed an interest, she actually wants to build and play a game with me. Also my daughter is loving the look of the models and with the simple rules I can explain to her how to play and she is only 3. Yes the rules are simple but when two like minded players come together in a shop,house etc and communicate ( social hobby and all ) it does work.

As for the original post. Well said. If you like or hate AoS fine, fair enough. No on stops you enjoying what you like. The community is fractured as it is, why make it more so when everyone can get along either way..........?

vintagetcp
26-07-2015, 14:58
I play warmahordes, batman miniatures game, 40k, Malifaux, guild ball, deadzone among others. I also enjoy AoS so safe to say I know other games are out there and I certainly dont live in the "gw" bubble. Why do I enjoy AoS you may ask. Well for one thing my misses who doesn't do models actually showed an interest, she actually wants to build and play a game with me. Also my daughter is loving the look of the models and with the simple rules I can explain to her how to play and she is only 3. Yes the rules are simple but when two like minded players come together in a shop,house etc and communicate ( social hobby and all ) it does work.

As for the original post. Well said. If you like or hate AoS fine, fair enough. No on stops you enjoying what you like. The community is fractured as it is, why make it more so when everyone can get along either way..........?

In another thread weren't you buying armies for your two sons??

WhispersofBlood
26-07-2015, 15:03
The biggest problem I find with this debate, is the "I know" attitude of those who don't currently like the game. They hate it/dislike it, which honestly is fine. I hate war machine, personally I find it has all the worst mechanics from 7th and all the people who I hated associating with from 2000-08 play it. I don't play it, I don't buy the models, I don't deal with the community, I don't frequent its forums. I'm generally aware of its existence and I keep my opinion to myself, excluding right now obviously.

The Whfb and WH:AoS debate is a little more heated because we're for better or worse a huge family, and no one fights like family. We all to some very degree loved the king, he left an unpopular successor and we're fighting over who gets the throne. Its natural. However there are things that are being overlooked, in the analysis of the game, which I feel are unfair.

AoS literally has 1 complete army, and I'll give you a hint it isn't the Eternals. All these discussions of how the game plays, tactics or lack there of, all miss the point. We still don't know where this game is going or what it will become when it is fully mature. We have a understanding of mechanics, what is and isn't possible under the system with some hastily converted unit special rules and the core game. It may take the better part of a full edition cycle to get there, and if you aren't down for the struggle, that is fine. Pop your head in next summer, and see what is happening, all this rage and heat isn't good for anyone or the hobby. Take a break keep playing 8th edition or KoW or Flames or Warmachine, or Warthrone, or Malifaux or any of the other dozens of war games out there.

You have a right to feel hurt, but that doesn't mean that you are right to feel hurt. It just means you need to find something else.

To the pro-AoS camp. I think you need to understand that while WHFB was never really meant to be or fully capable of being a highly competitive game. But, a lot of work was put in by the community to get it workable, and many people have invested a lot of time into the game portion of WHFB. One of the things I have always said in pricing threads is that WHFB is more than just the game, if you aren't down for the hobby GW models probably aren't really for you. However some people persisted in spite of this, because they really enjoyed the game, or just enjoyed the whfb flavoured competition. It isn't fair to say well 8th sucked for these reasons, you have to realize that right now people are upset, and upset people don't want more information. They get that you are enjoying AoS, even if they won't admit it to you, that isn't going to make them all of a sudden agree with you or suddenly accept the current flaws in the system.

There are things to like in AoS, it has a lot of mechanics that I've found interesting and rewarding from other new games. I'm looking forward to see how it develops, both with the new armies/races/factions that replace the old and how they manage this new active story line. If it is going to be a push and pull background where or anything else. That doesn't mean I'm not going to miss 8th edition or the game that was, it just means I'm ok with change.

I can also see AoS providing a platform for specialist games in a way that WHFB could not. People forget how early in the miniature gaming history GW was putting games out. They were literally cutting edge, a lot of the games out now are just re-skins, modernized. I'm looking forward to an plastic, epic sized AoS game in the future, or something like a narrative pack (Blood in the Badlands style), which will be intergrated into the story line. Could these things be done with WHFB? Probably, but to be honest that story had run its course for me. I love the story of the Elves, I find it an impossibly sad story. But after 20 years, I'm ok with something new, I'll miss Nagarythe, Alith Anar and the shadow warriors, but I'm looking forward to where the Twins are leading, how Morathi is back, and if that means Caledor escaped as well.

Kegslayer
26-07-2015, 15:03
In another thread weren't you buying armies for your two sons??


No.........

HammerofThunor
26-07-2015, 15:08
Where does it say it's the "warhammer fantasy battles" board? I assume it's in the forum rules somewhere as the board is just "Warhammer".

As for the price increase, what's the £10 based on? 5 terminators cost £28 and they're a similar size (possibly smaller) than the Stormcast. We've had no other releases to compare at the minute. And as for the extra stuff (measuring thing and dice cups?), they're hardly essential so who cares how much they're charging?

As for warseer being GW only, you are aware there are plenty of Non or old GW boards on here don't you? The reason the warhammer one is most prominent is because it's one of the most popular. You want to ensure there is a place for WFB on here in the feature? Then start talking about it. Start threads about tactics, or rules developments, or battle reports, or fluff discussions, or home made campaigns that push fluff forward in that small sphere, or anything else that used to be talked about. What you don't want to do is go on the Thread about favourite Stormcast chamber and put a load of posts about "huh huh space marines". Nor put out a load of threads about how there is no depth to AoS, or how the AoS fluff is rubbish, or how GW are fools for AoS, or any of the other multitude of negative threads about AoS. Because that measures they're about AoS. If you want AoS to go away, give it no attentions. If it doesn't have the longevity (of which we have been assured time and again), it will become a background noise and either die or be moved to the bowels of the forum.

And finally, on to killing WFB. According to the most trusted rumourmongers WFB was already dead (as in GW has decided to stop supporting it). They then convinced themselves to give a fantasy setting another go with a rebooted system. It seems AoS wasn't their dream that they killed WFB for, just something they would give a go pulling out of its ashes.

But seriously, given all the talk the forum should be jammed with threads on WFB or KOW or other (supposedly vastly superior) games. It's not, so sort it out.

DinDon
26-07-2015, 15:11
No, it's actually a crap system that does not provide for those people better than either 8th or a variety of other games, and paying for it requires supporting an idiotic company that brags about not doing market research. If you choose to play AoS I'm going to laugh cuz you've swallowed the GW kool-aid.

(And if you're a modeller who chooses to model up sigmarines or khorne bloodskull bloodbloods, well, I'mma laugh at your awful taste :) )

I m sorry for you....I trully am...


On the topic, i belong to the 1st and 2nd category of people. People should respect dif opinions but the moment insults are thrown against eachother, things become personal.
I will respect as i always did both the people that dont like and the ones that like AOS. I m sticking to these forums because i like AOS and see potential in it. If i didnt like it or see any potential i would just get off these forums since there would be nothing for me here. Its the thin line of providing constructive criticism with respect to others and being a troll that needs to be dealt with fire.

dariakus
26-07-2015, 15:54
The rage is strong.

HelloKitty
26-07-2015, 15:55
And seriously, AoS is a poorly designed game. There are so many BETTER games out there, that cost less. If people like AoS, fine whatever, but I think most of them just lack exposure to better games and live in a GW bubble.

Words like this are kind of why I've taken a mini break from internet forums for a while. Most of the people i play AOS with play many other games as well. I know very few people that just play GW-only games. What is "better" is always a matter of personal opinion.

So while some may live in a GW bubble - this is the internet age. Its kind of hard to not notice all of the games out there. Its just that for some people, those other games aren't really that good either or don't "do it" for them so they play GW games.

Our group runs six different game system events throughout the year. 40k and fantasy are just two of those. We have close to sixty active members in our group. Everyone is pretty much exposed to every mainstream game out there and knows about it. Them choosing to not play them is for any number of reasons, not because they don't know about them.

At the end of the day, most of us are 30 - 40 year olds. We'll play what we feel like playing. The opinion of the internet does not influence how we enjoy our time.

dariakus
26-07-2015, 16:10
Words like this are kind of why I've taken a mini break from internet forums for a while.


Yeah. The internet of late (in more areas than just wargaming) seems to be an infinite hate machine. I should take a break from it all too, and just paint some sexy models.

Captain Idaho
26-07-2015, 16:21
There needs a separate board for Warhammer that was. Then people won't clash as much.

But I think if you need to defend why you like a game, it's clearly not a good game. Quality speaks for itself.

NagashLover
26-07-2015, 16:33
There needs a separate board for Warhammer that was. Then people won't clash as much.

But I think if you need to defend why you like a game, it's clearly not a good game. Quality speaks for itself.

Which is faulty. So if you defend Fantasy Battles it was not a good game? Warmahordes defended, well there we go folks it isn't a good game! So applying your logic, no good game exists? I can agree with that...otherwise your opinion is poorly formed and immature. Regardless, I agree with the board needs a separation since people can't seem to separate themselves from little toy soldiers.

Moving on...

Whispersofblood, very well said.

The types of people TC listed are actually the types of people who play any system. I know, and play, with people in Warmahordes who care a bit more about fun than competitive gaming. I even know a few who play the game with tweaks to the rules and scenarios, even though the system is aimed at hand holding. Kids also play as it is a miniatures game and not trying to read something written by Hegel. Same said honestly for all the other systems I play.

All this AoS outcry does is point out people who really just need to vent because they feel they have lost some kind of emotional and time investment. Which is understandable but honestly, I've played the game for over 20 years and will continue to play it when I see fit. I don't fear change. I also have no problem giving my money to other companies if I don't like what GW is doing. Mainly, some people here need to grow up. It's just a miniature game, which you can keep playing. PP utterly dropped the ball and committed a far worse act with Monsterpocalypse and people still play that. White Wolf dropped OWoD with the NWoD and people still play it. Heck we even still run 2nd edition D&D.

I've seen far more people who dislike AoS being rude and insulting then those who like it, simply because they feel hurt and believe everyone else should too. Which means no matter how AoS had turned out they were going to rant and rave...unless it was just 9th Edition Warhammer Fantasy reskin. These people either need to move on (as we have a ton of different systems out there to play) or learn how to manage their emotions like a rational adult.

Personally, I have zero, nada interest in AoS. It's simply still in its beginning stages. It lacks a variety of forces to play. The Sigmar guys look neat, the Khorne models are as boring as Khorne has ever been. Still, even then those two factions have limited models. The oldhammer army rules are meant purely as a terribly made joke to old fans. A Swan song. They didn't have to do it and honestly they probably shouldn't have done it, but they did. Maybe when they finally release more factions I'll take a look.

The fluff has potential and I like the direction they are going with it, don't care for the naming sickness they seem to have...Still, it's in the early stages of its life. Similar to how many people state that the reason Kings of War fluff appears bare bones is how long the game has been around, well AoS has been out even less.

Lastly, I'm not sold on the system or how they plan to handle the game, which is something nobody here knows and that is a fact.

Will they introduce new rules with new models/scenarios similar to how Warmahordes does it? Will they actually take advantage of the living rules format they proclaimed at the beginning? No idea, but I'll wait and see. It's just still too early for anyone to bash the game mindlessly. You may not like the system, which is fine I pass on plenty of other games because of that...AoS included...but that doesn't mean you are right. It doesn't mean your preference is...better (in fact that flies in the face of the definition).

So until I see how AoS turns out I'll continue to play 8th (and previous editions of Fantasy as I have always done) and the many other games I play. It really is that simple.

Captain Idaho
26-07-2015, 16:52
You're nitpicking. I wasn't making a blanket statement or saying any defence of anything is indicative of poor quality. I was making a casual comment on how constant criticism of something is usually an indication of poor quality.

I thought it would have been clear from context.

Anyway, the game is rubbish and as such it will receive constant criticism as a result.

thesoundofmusica
26-07-2015, 16:54
I'm probably type 1,2 and 3. I'm having a good time playing with people who were reluctant to play a game of 8th for various reasons.

But I can also be a powergamer and extremely competitive. I recognize however that AoS will likely never fill that spot.

Pacman
26-07-2015, 16:59
Words like this are kind of why I've taken a mini break from internet forums for a while. Most of the people i play AOS with play many other games as well. I know very few people that just play GW-only games.

Sure, but I think we all recognise that there's a significant percentage of Warhammer players that in fact don't play anything except GW games. Many people on this forum have posted recently saying exactly that. GW targets outside the mainstream wargames market, and had been very successful at attracting people who've never played a wargame and then providing them with an environment where they only ever get exposed to GW games. I don't think there's any need to take that comment personally when it's clearly talking about a subset of players that you aren't part of.

Da Etruskan
26-07-2015, 17:07
I m sorry for you....I trully am...


"I am sorry you have tastes and you do not buy/play everything GW produces acritically"

HelloKitty
26-07-2015, 17:20
Sure, but I think we all recognise that there's a significant percentage of Warhammer players that in fact don't play anything except GW games. Many people on this forum have posted recently saying exactly that. GW targets outside the mainstream wargames market, and had been very successful at attracting people who've never played a wargame and then providing them with an environment where they only ever get exposed to GW games. I don't think there's any need to take that comment personally when it's clearly talking about a subset of players that you aren't part of.

The phrase i was reponding to was *most* players that enjoy age of sigmar live in a gw only bubble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AngryAngel
26-07-2015, 17:32
Words like this are kind of why I've taken a mini break from internet forums for a while. Most of the people i play AOS with play many other games as well. I know very few people that just play GW-only games. What is "better" is always a matter of personal opinion.

So while some may live in a GW bubble - this is the internet age. Its kind of hard to not notice all of the games out there. Its just that for some people, those other games aren't really that good either or don't "do it" for them so they play GW games.

Our group runs six different game system events throughout the year. 40k and fantasy are just two of those. We have close to sixty active members in our group. Everyone is pretty much exposed to every mainstream game out there and knows about it. Them choosing to not play them is for any number of reasons, not because they don't know about them.

At the end of the day, most of us are 30 - 40 year olds. We'll play what we feel like playing. The opinion of the internet does not influence how we enjoy our time.

Knowing the other games is one thing, but previous posts in defense of AoS you've said your group won't move to a different system just because of deep rooted support to GW game systems. In that case there is exposure, but acceptance is a different beast. You can know the other things seemingly are out there and not give them the time of day, like all of the games you have sitting on your shelf that your group just won't touch, leads me to believe there is a little bit of a bubble there then, just based on what we're talked of, if I am wrong with that thought please let me know.

As well, what are the other systems your group actually runs steady events for ? Just because I am curious.

@Random thoughts, I completely agree no one should be insulted for liking AoS or any game they enjoy. I support the detractors of the game but not when it gets into over the top insulting of those who enjoy the game. It is a bit of a fallacy to say that only those who hate the system/game are the ones tossing stones, I've seen just as many insults hurled by supporters. If one side will be called out, I think both sides need to cease attacking one another, we should keep the focus right on where it should be, on attacking the game itself.

HelloKitty
26-07-2015, 17:49
Xwing, armada, blood bowl, battletech


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DinDon
26-07-2015, 18:00
"I am sorry you have tastes and you do not buy/play everything GW produces acritically"

And you came to the assumption that i play everything GW produces, from? jesus whats wrong with the internet these days?Too many psyckers, keyboard warriors and wannabe investors!

Vos
26-07-2015, 18:07
I find it amusing in a strange sort of way that many people on these forums are so aggressive with each other. I wouldn't dream of telling a bunch of WRG7th edition ancients players that their version of the game is s*** and that they are ****** and then try to justify (my entirely subjective) opinion by saying that my preferred version (WRG 6th) is the 'best' version. And then attack the WRG publishers for no longer supporting 6th?

I and my mates like AoS, don't need a forum of strangers to tell me that it's rubbish. They aren't right. Beauty and the eye of the beholder and all that.
Wonder what frothing rage this live and let live attitude might attract?

Dave

vintagetcp
26-07-2015, 18:30
I find it amusing in a strange sort of way that many people on these forums are so aggressive with each other. I wouldn't dream of telling a bunch of WRG7th edition ancients players that their version of the game is s*** and that they are ****** and then try to justify (my entirely subjective) opinion by saying that my preferred version (WRG 6th) is the 'best' version. And then attack the WRG publishers for no longer supporting 6th?

I and my mates like AoS, don't need a forum of strangers to tell me that it's rubbish. They aren't right. Beauty and the eye of the beholder and all that.
Wonder what frothing rage this live and let live attitude might attract?

Dave

Please stop giving GW money.

Vos
26-07-2015, 18:38
No, coz then they'll stop making cool toys?
And it is my money? :)

Vos

Vos
26-07-2015, 18:38
Sorry, double post.

HelloKitty
26-07-2015, 18:39
Please stop giving GW money.

Nah. If another company can emerge with models, lore, and a system i like set in fantasy ill consider it then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MOMUS
26-07-2015, 19:18
I'm probably type 1,2 and 3. I'm having a good time playing with people who were reluctant to play a game of 8th for various reasons.

But I can also be a powergamer and extremely competitive. I recognize however that AoS will likely never fill that spot.

Do you not think community driven scenarios and comp will scratch your competitive itch?

thesoundofmusica
26-07-2015, 19:46
Do you not think community driven scenarios and comp will scratch your competitive itch?

I doubt it :D
I play lots of other games and sports outside of miniature wargaming where I get to challenge myself.

Tae
26-07-2015, 21:45
Please stop giving GW money.

I'm inclined to go and buy something now just to spite people.

vlad78
26-07-2015, 21:50
No, coz then they'll stop making cool toys?
And it is my money? :)

Vos

They've already stopped making cool toys. ;)

vlad78
26-07-2015, 21:54
I'm inclined to go and buy something now just to spite people.

lol

I pre ordered the dropzone commander special edition just because of you. :p











Nah, the last part wasn't true. It's because of GW and AOS.

Tokamak
26-07-2015, 21:56
They could have done all that with WFB 8th edition by just ignoring rules and making up their own. Which AoS encourages (almost requires) people to do anyway.

Exactly. It's where the upper limit is placed. 8th edition had the upper limit way up there in the sky where even a wealth hobbyist with wealthy hobbyist friends with an enormous amount of free time would still struggle to exhaust the material. All the while anyone who wanted less could strip away from the game to match it to their liking.

AoS leaves nothing to strip in the first place. It's not that kids/casuals shouldn't be able to like this. It's that kids/casuals are the only ones able to like it.

Dosiere
26-07-2015, 22:17
Meh, the real problem is that AoS is being compared to 8th edition because it replaced it. If GW had released AoS alongside a 9th edition say, it would not be getting the hate it is. As a standalone game it is what it is. It's a fun completely non competitive skirmish game for lulz. I have enjoyed some of my AoS games. As a replacement it's terrible though if you enjoyed WFB.

The bottom line is that GW could have done a better job transitioning into AoS. It just feels dirty the way they pulled even the FAQs for 8th. No press release. No Q&A with concerned fans. No bone thrown to WFB players. It's a faceless entity with no soul to the average gamer anymore and so it's easy to hate on it.

However, I think it's silly to hate on each other. It's probably the most negative thing to come out of this game so far, all this back and forth just because people play or don't play a certain game. It's healthy to discuss, even argue, about the pros and cons, but somewhere along the line it got way too personal.

AngryAngel
26-07-2015, 22:53
Xwing, armada, blood bowl, battletech


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not surprised with the X wing and Armada, they've done such a good job with getting those games out there, I'd say they are about the most memorable of current mini based games aside from GW games. Though honorable mention with warmahordes.


Also, I can't see how you like all aspects of AoS kitty. Models I can agree, they make cool models, though I haven't seen much I like yet from AoS to be honest, I think the sigmarines are dumb looking. Lore, is awful and goofy I can't see how anyone has enjoyed reading the fluff, and system, you've done alot of work just to make the system work as is, that doesn't strike me as liking the system really.

The models are alright, just don't dig the sigmarines in any fashion. The lore is poor and goofy, to me. The rules need serious work in important areas, such as army set up. Making a bad situation work is one thing but your posts kind of put out mixed messages, to me at least. Are you all in or just making the best out of a poor system ?

HelloKitty
26-07-2015, 23:01
Yeah - it helps that it is running off of the star wars license as well. Everyone knows star wars.

AngryAngel
26-07-2015, 23:05
Yeah - it helps that it is running off of the star wars license as well. Everyone knows star wars.

Yeah but even a good license wouldn't help if they fubared the game.

scruffyryan
27-07-2015, 00:12
Yeah but even a good license wouldn't help if they fubared the game.

See you say that....and then AoS.

Skargit Crookfang
27-07-2015, 03:41
Yeah - it helps that it is running off of the star wars license as well. Everyone knows star wars.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't a few Star Wars and Star Trek MMOs massively tanked over the last 5 or 6 years?

Mawduce
27-07-2015, 03:49
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't a few Star Wars and Star Trek MMOs massively tanked over the last 5 or 6 years?

Yes they have. It's like making fun of someone who likes Destiny. You can like whatever you want. But don't ever ignore the failures of what you like too. I like table top gaming but it's damn expensive across the board no matter what game you play. AoS doesn't have a very good balance mechanic. Large scale fantasy battle systems tend to be too restrictive etc. etc., I don't like how X-Wing has everything pre painted. Dystopian wars ships mostly look garbage, but the rules are cool. Anyone can find fault with any system.

HelloKitty
27-07-2015, 04:10
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't a few Star Wars and Star Trek MMOs massively tanked over the last 5 or 6 years?

I said it helps that its star wars, not that the only reason its successful is because its star wars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GrandmasterWang
27-07-2015, 05:41
Well done in slapping down the troll in the other thread HelloKitty. It was mildly amusing how he got pwned with his own yahtzee comment.

Nice post TC... Unfortunately you only got 1 single reply before the hating started again but that's these boards for you.

Now I fully understand why other forums refer to this one as "Whineseer". Nice picture also btw.

I personally have no interest in the Dystopian wars system but think most of the ships I have seen look pretty cool.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Kyriakin
27-07-2015, 05:52
Nice post TC... Unfortunately you only got 1 single reply before the hating started again but that's these boards for you
Or maybe, you know, more people don't like the game than like it. Hence the fact that there are more negative responses than positive ones all over the forums.

And, from what I have seen, negs outnumber the possies on other forums, including army-specific forums. Maybe not to the extent of here (which seems to be around 20:80) but certainly a bad reception all-round from what I've seen.

I hope, for GW's sake, that the fabled "never go to forums, but love AoS" types are buying, and buying hard.

GrandmasterWang
27-07-2015, 05:55
Or maybe, you know, more people don't like the game than like it. Hence the fact that there are more negative responses than positive ones.

There are like 50 other threads for hating on AOS.

The fact that the second responder tried to say that people who liked AOS were all inexperienced gamers/only played GW proved it was just a "Hater gonna hate" post rather than an actual discussion post.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Gratan
27-07-2015, 06:50
I've been playing WFB off and on since 3/4e. I own 3 armies of considerable sizes (10k HElves, 6k WoC, 4k Dwarfs), and I really enjoyed my one game of AoS. I probably had more fun with that one small game than I've had in the last two editions of WFB.

I play many other games, I do not live in a "GW Bubble". And I still liked Age of Sigmar.

I think the problem is that people are not giving the game a fair shake and their expectations are getting in the way. The rules are good, simple, and easy to learn. They play fast, there is subtle tactical depth, and is surprisingly fun.

No, AoS ISNT WFB 9e. It's a new game. Instead of berating the system and those that like it, maybe you should try playing it. You might have fun.

GrandmasterWang
27-07-2015, 08:17
I've been playing WFB off and on since 3/4e. I own 3 armies of considerable sizes (10k HElves, 6k WoC, 4k Dwarfs), and I really enjoyed my one game of AoS. I probably had more fun with that one small game than I've had in the last two editions of WFB.

I play many other games, I do not live in a "GW Bubble". And I still liked Age of Sigmar.

I think the problem is that people are not giving the game a fair shake and their expectations are getting in the way. The rules are good, simple, and easy to learn. They play fast, there is subtle tactical depth, and is surprisingly fun.

No, AoS ISNT WFB 9e. It's a new game. Instead of berating the system and those that like it, maybe you should try playing it. You might have fun.

In b4 you get attacked!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Gratan
27-07-2015, 08:47
In b4 you get attacked!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

;)

I'm surprised you made it!

Kerill
27-07-2015, 09:50
People hate AOS partly because it is the death of official support of warhammer and if GW has some success with AOS they will definitely never resurrect warhammer.

There is also more hate here than on other forums partly also because the mods have not split AOS away from proper warhammer. Is AOS had a separate forum there would be less friction.

Captain Idaho
27-07-2015, 11:47
Seriously, even if the game was cleaner and more interesting, it still wouldn't work for most gamers. Why? Because it lacks the pull that brought us into the game in the 1st place.

Magic phase? Nope.

Magic items and customised characters? Nope.

Tactical maneuvering and ranked combat? Nope.

If I wanted to play 40K, I'd play 40K. That's the issue. There is no place for Age of Sigmar in our gaming group because it steps on the toes of a more established, superior game anyway. It's lost its niche.

Captain Idaho
27-07-2015, 12:28
Yep I quit Age of Sigmar. I am still playing 8th edition and enjoying it. But here's the kicker - I've bought a new Tomb Kings army from various ebay sources and GW hasn't benefited at all. I did this out of principle because I am not rewarding GW with my hard earned cash.

So yes we'll leave and then the fantasy hobby will lose our precious cash and support. Do you think there are hordes of kids rushing to replace us? I very much doubt it. After all, 40K is massively more successful and supported by customers than this new game which is building from the ground up in many ways, and 40K is in declining sales.

Twido
27-07-2015, 12:56
Reading through the various threads there seems to be far more personal attacks from the Pro-AOS posters than the Anti-AOS camp. The majority of Anti-AOSers are attacking the game itself (obviously there are a few exceptions) however there are far more incidents of people who are against the game being called poisonous, nasty, etc includingyourown post.

To be frank, I have read a lot of discussion and some of that has been a little heated, but actual personal attacks have been minimal and relatively mild. I think people are confusing disagreement and argument for something more personal.

HelloKitty
27-07-2015, 13:06
To be frank, I have read a lot of discussion and some of that has been a little heated, but actual personal attacks have been minimal and relatively mild. I think people are confusing disagreement and argument for something more personal.

Sadly - all too common on discussion forums.

Voss
27-07-2015, 13:15
People hate AOS partly because it is the death of official support of warhammer and if GW has some success with AOS they will definitely never resurrect warhammer.

Mostly, though, people hate AoS because it is a fundamentally terrible game. People (generalizing here) can assign whatever motives they want, or crow at the idea that people will leave (because obviously that is somehow good for the game, company and other players... :rolleyes:), but at the end of the day, GW churned out some bad rules and made changes that the customer base in general didn't want.

HelloKitty
27-07-2015, 13:18
GW was definitely stuck in the middle of a rock and a hard place. Just tweaking 8th wouldn't have gotten players to start buying fantasy models either.

Shards of Basalt
27-07-2015, 14:18
I had fun playing it but I enjoy my lore and right now Age of Sigmar feels so sparse there that I'm simply not inspired like I was with the old world.

Markino
27-07-2015, 15:37
Just want to say I loved 8th. I think it's a better game... but god I wanted to have a game with my treemen or a couple of dragons. AoS allows me to do that: play with my massive armies and have fun. Yesterday I played my vast VC army against a small army of rats... I lost. It was fun, quick, lighthearted.

I have been playing serious games for a few years now and I have to say I enjoyed, for once, having... fun.

Overall, I think GW didn't kill the game for those who want to play 8th. We still have your minis... It could have been MUCH worse.

On the other hand, I am happy I can play a new game.

I know they could have avoided killing 8th for AoS... they could have allowed both games to co-exhist but I am not mad at them. The decision is commercially sound and they 'preserved' the old hobby. Also, for those who are waiting for a more competitive ruleset... it is my understanding it will be released. Let's just wait a bit longer =)

mood: 'embracing change'

Captain Idaho
27-07-2015, 15:56
Is it even a sensible commercial decision though? Because alienating your existing customer base (or at least a percentage of them) who are the ones pulling newbies into the hobby isn't sensible.

I don't believe it is a rock and a hard place either. A skirmish starter game would have been a great starting point for new customers and actually encourage players to build towards something later on.

Should GW aim to please all their customers by providing both Fantasy (replete with magic items, magic phases and ranked combat) and the new players and kids who want an easy little game they can throw miniatures at without a care?

Actually, yes. GW is a business and alienating some potential customers because you promote others isn't a winning idea. Especially if you could easily have kept both sides happy.


Just want to say I loved 8th. I think it's a better game... but god I wanted to have a game with my treemen or a couple of dragons. AoS allows me to do that: play with my massive armies and have fun. Yesterday I played my vast VC army against a small army of rats... I lost. It was fun, quick, lighthearted.

I have been playing serious games for a few years now and I have to say I enjoyed, for once, having... fun.

Overall, I think GW didn't kill the game for those who want to play 8th. We still have your minis... It could have been MUCH worse.

On the other hand, I am happy I can play a new game.

I know they could have avoided killing 8th for AoS... they could have allowed both games to co-exhist but I am not mad at them. The decision is commercially sound and they 'preserved' the old hobby. Also, for those who are waiting for a more competitive ruleset... it is my understanding it will be released. Let's just wait a bit longer =)

mood: 'embracing change'

Your understanding eh? Insider knowledge? Be nice if there was a ray of sunshine on this sorry state of affairs.

Here's the thing - you could have taken a Dragon and treemen in a game of 8th either with the opponent's consent or just using a Wood Elves force...

HammerofThunor
27-07-2015, 16:19
Could have done those things. But didn't, and potentially, didn't feel able to. Perhaps the 'best' thing AoS has done (as it seems to be a common theme through some of the positive posts) is that it helped identify similar minded players to enable playing a game in a different way. Just as those who despise it should be identified easier to enable simpler minded people to continue playing 8th or moving to a 'better' system that fulfils your needs.

That and the fact someone's going to have to come to terms with reality (either GW that they can't just be a miniatures company and survive, or gamers who think GW can't be a miniatures company and survive).

Captain Idaho
27-07-2015, 16:29
I can see a smaller scale miniatures company working but GW will shrink before it comes to stability.

Premium miniatures companies aren't too big and profitable like GW wants to be.

Ever since the LotR bubble burst, GW has been trying to re-establish the golden times where business boomed. This is a mistake because that was an anomaly rather than state of normality.

Sephillion
27-07-2015, 16:29
Ironically your post is the rudest, most vindictive and personally insulting one I have seen.

You obviously don't play many games if you think all warhammer players for the last 9+ years are such awful people.

Best go back to your fantasy world (and I don't mean warhammer).

Was looking to say something smart in response to this guy’s comment, you beat me to it. +1.

Tokamak
27-07-2015, 16:30
Just want to say I loved 8th. I think it's a better game... but god I wanted to have a game with my treemen or a couple of dragons. AoS allows me to do that

End Times allowed that as well.

ewar
27-07-2015, 16:51
I played a game of 8th yesterday using a dragon and 2 treemen. Only the second game I've ever played with my wood elves!

Tyranno1
27-07-2015, 17:26
Here's the thing - you could have taken a Dragon and treemen in a game of 8th either with the opponent's consent or just using a Wood Elves force...

This is interesting, as someone recently brought something like this up the other day in a GW.

They said the best thing about AoS was that they could use their Phoenix in their Wood Elf army. At this point someone sudgested that he could have just asked people first.
He was convinced that nobody would have allowed this, so asked publicly. To which every fantasy player said they would have let him if he had simply asked them.

This I think shows a problem with the Warhammer community, people may perceive each other as WAAC jerks too much, or think everyone is one. To the point that they restrict themselves.

Theocracity
27-07-2015, 17:37
This is interesting, as someone recently brought something like this up the other day in a GW.

They said the best thing about AoS was that they could use their Phoenix in their Wood Elf army. At this point someone sudgested that he could have just asked people first.
He was convinced that nobody would have allowed this, so asked publicly. To which every fantasy player said they would have let him if he had simply asked them.

This I think shows a problem with the Warhammer community, people may perceive each other as WAAC jerks too much, or think everyone is one. To the point that they restrict themselves.

That perception didn't come out of thin air, though. We've had years where tourney lists are all that's discussed, where slight organizational changes in a codex ruin people's armies enough to make them sell it off, and where a lot of people see those kind of customized games as a grudging one-off played instead of a 'real' game.

I'd be curious to see how many of the people at the shop would have said the same thing when presented with that situation before an actual game. If they actually are totally fine with it then it's to their credit, but I feel like it's easier to agree with a rhetorical point than it is to show it in action.

Captain Idaho
27-07-2015, 17:43
I think we shouldn't be too unfair on people. If you rock up with an off the wall list then people won't be interested in facing you, but give people a little notice and most people will likely play.

Which brings me back to the Age of Sigmar - GW are telling us we're playing wargames wrong. We have to play with nothing but a narrative approach because it was our fault they failed to market their game or lower the barriers to entry. It's our fault we don't enjoy the way the studio approaches games.

Captain Idaho
27-07-2015, 17:44
I think we shouldn't be too unfair on people. If you rock up with an off the wall list then people won't be interested in facing you, but give people a little notice and most people will likely play.

Which brings me back to the Age of Sigmar - GW are telling us we're playing wargames wrong. We have to play with nothing but a narrative approach because it was our fault they failed to market their game or lower the barriers to entry. It's our fault we don't enjoy the way the studio approaches games.

Tyranno1
27-07-2015, 17:58
That perception didn't come out of thin air, though. We've had years where tourney lists are all that's discussed, where slight organizational changes in a codex ruin people's armies enough to make them sell it off, and where a lot of people see those kind of customized games as a grudging one-off played instead of a 'real' game.

I'd be curious to see how many of the people at the shop would have said the same thing when presented with that situation before an actual game. If they actually are totally fine with it then it's to their credit, but I feel like it's easier to agree with a rhetorical point than it is to show it in action.

I didnt say it did pop up out of thin air. Its more that its interesting to see this attitude "in the field" than the internet.

Also, to your comment on people simply agreeing with a rhetorical point, not all of them gave simple black and white answers.
Some said it would be ok if the model was themed for the army visually, another said if the player had a fluff reason for doing so it was fine.

So these answers were not made by bleeting sheep.

HelloKitty
27-07-2015, 18:04
Or they created a game that has a different approach to the hobby outside of tournament play, and has nothing to do with tournaments being right or wrong, just targeted at a different audience.

Outside of a jervis article published in 2002 i havent read anything from a games workshop designer that says that tournament play is *wrong*.

Their act of not supporting tournaments or supporting a game written without tournament boundaries does not mean that they think its *wrong* necessarily rather thats not their intended crowd.

I write games and i can say with 100-% confidence that when i have an intended audience for something, i dont feel the people that dont like my direction are doing it wrong.,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Theocracity
27-07-2015, 18:05
I didnt say it did pop up out of thin air. Its more that its interesting to see this attitude "in the field" than the internet.

I get what you're saying. But I think that regardless if it's Internet or field, the atmosphere was there. When people say "you could have played that way the whole time," I think it's worth asking the follow up question "then why wasn't that style of play more common?"


Also, to your comment on people simply agreeing with a rhetorical point, not all of them gave simple black and white answers.
Some said it would be ok if the model was themed for the army visually, another said if the player had a fluff reason for doing so it was fine.

So these answers were not made by bleeting sheep.

I...didn't say they were? :wtf:

Zingraff
27-07-2015, 18:05
People hate AOS partly because it is the death of official support of warhammer and if GW has some success with AOS they will definitely never resurrect warhammer.

There is also more hate here than on other forums partly also because the mods have not split AOS away from proper warhammer. Is AOS had a separate forum there would be less friction.

This, and 40k players who don't play WHFB, but worry that AoS is going to spread and infect 40k. I don't think any of us want "AoS 40k" to happen.

Captain Idaho
27-07-2015, 18:07
HelloKitty - You're kidding right? White Dwarf was full of articles that banged on about the narrative play and how many times have we read/witnessed staff responding to GW criticism of competitive rules as "we don't care"?

HelloKitty
27-07-2015, 18:23
HelloKitty - You're kidding right? White Dwarf was full of articles that banged on about the narrative play and how many times have we read/witnessed staff responding to GW criticism of competitive rules as "we don't care"?

I haven't read a white dwarf article in a long time, but if there is a white dwarf article that states that tournament play is wrong I'd like to read it as that would change my opinion.

However - talking about narrative play and pushing narrative play is not the same as saying "tournament play is wrong". Saying tournament play is *wrong* is trolling and antagonistic. Attributing that line to someone that didn't say it would to me be along those same lines: trying to get a bitter and angry response out of people.

Tyranno1
27-07-2015, 18:24
I get what you're saying. But I think that regardless if it's Internet or field, the atmosphere was there. When people say "you could have played that way the whole time," I think it's worth asking the follow up question "then why wasn't that style of play more common?"

I...didn't say they were? :wtf:

Most likely because a few players play like that 100% of the time (or "that guy"), and that makes people think its the norm when they start.
The whole, not even trying to ask thing I dont get.
But, we do have a local player who DOES do that sort of thing (adds odd stuff to his army for fluff reasons etc), but he has been in wargames and RPG stuff for a long time. Where as the other person hadnt been playing for anywhere near as long.

And the bleeting sheep bit was more me ending my post, dont take it personally.

thesoundofmusica
27-07-2015, 18:36
"But you couldve done that in 8th, but you couldve done that in 8th" It's like a bad track!
Who cares!? If people are enjoying the game, they just are. Nobody asked for AoS, but some might like it all the same.
Someone even asked somewhere "would it have hurt you if AoS had points in it?" No! But jesus **** it wasnt my choice was it?
It's like debating in bizarro world. I cannot go back and undo what was done, but I'm not gonna dislike AoS no matter the amount of bitching. Coz I have fun playing it.

Theocracity
27-07-2015, 18:40
Most likely because a few players play like that 100% of the time (or "that guy"), and that makes people think its the norm when they start.
The whole, not even trying to ask thing I dont get.

I do sort of get it. Social norms are a pretty powerful force, no matter what the context.


But, we do have a local player who DOES do that sort of thing (adds odd stuff to his army for fluff reasons etc), but he has been in wargames and RPG stuff for a long time. Where as the other person hadnt been playing for anywhere near as long.

Sounds like my kind of player :).


And the bleeting sheep bit was more me ending my post, dont take it personally.

No worries, I was just concerned that you thought I was attacking your group. They sound like good people.

AngryAngel
27-07-2015, 18:42
+ + REMOVED BY WS -I- + +


Ironically your post is the rudest, most vindictive and personally insulting one I have seen.

You obviously don't play many games if you think all warhammer players for the last 9+ years are such awful people.

Best go back to your fantasy world (and I don't mean warhammer).

Your right on, this guy is way off the reservation and I think just a bit, crazy, and that says something coming from me.

big squig
27-07-2015, 18:43
"But you couldve done that in 8th, but you couldve done that in 8th" It's like a bad track!
Who cares!? If people are enjoying the game, they just are. Nobody asked for AoS, but some might like it all the same.
Someone even asked somewhere "would it have hurt you if AoS had points in it?" No! But jesus ******* it wasnt my choice was it?
It's like debating in bizarro world. I cannot go back and undo what was done, but I'm not gonna dislike AoS no matter the amount of bitching.

The "couldn't you play any game without points" is in response to people claiming AoS is great because it has no points. It's as if they are happy so many people get cut out of the game, even tough they bought huge amounts of models from GW already. It just feels selfish.

It would be like if GW had made 9th instead of AoS, but decided that skaven would no longer be a playable army, and then certain players who liked 9th went online posting about how great 9th is now that everyone with a skaven army can't play anymore.

AoS isn't less fun because it has no points, it's just much more narrow.

Mateobard
27-07-2015, 18:59
GW was definitely stuck in the middle of a rock and a hard place. Just tweaking 8th wouldn't have gotten players to start buying fantasy models either.

taking their underlying concept - everything is worth putting on the table - but harnessing professional game design talent to create a truly lean and clean rules system combined with a good balance system would have run off a lot less people. I really wanted this game to not suck, even if it was a radical departure from 8th. Unfortunately, the game is designed lazily and passes the buck in terms of balance to the players who shouldn't have to be the ones to make their game engine work.

Tyranno1
27-07-2015, 19:01
I do sort of get it. Social norms are a pretty powerful force, no matter what the context.



Sounds like my kind of player :).



No worries, I was just concerned that you thought I was attacking your group. They sound like good people.

No worries. He is really funny, he has a squig hopper which is a goblin on a pogo stick.


The "couldn't you play any game without points" is in response to people claiming AoS is great because it has no points. It's as if they are happy so many people get cut out of the game, even tough they bought huge amounts of models from GW already. It just feels selfish.

It would be like if GW had made 9th instead of AoS, but decided that skaven would no longer be a playable army, and then certain players who liked 9th went online posting about how great 9th is now that everyone with a skaven army can't play anymore.

AoS isn't less fun because it has no points, it's just much more narrow.

This pretty much sums up why Anti-AoS "side" get riled up.
Not nice when people say how good something you enjoyed is gone.

Mateobard
27-07-2015, 20:46
I'm about to blow y'alls mind with this one. Brace yourselves -


Criticism of Age of Sigmar is not in any way an attack on people who enjoy Age of Sigmar.


No one needs to be defended from something that isn't about them.

Theocracity
27-07-2015, 21:00
I'm about to blow y'alls mind with this one. Brace yourselves -


Criticism of Age of Sigmar is not in any way an attack on people who enjoy Age of Sigmar.


No one needs to be defended from something that isn't about them.

The problem is that criticism of AoS often bleeds into passive-aggressive snipes about the maturity, experience, and other qualities of people who are enjoying it. That gets really old, really fast, especially when it crops up in threads that aren't intended for it (like news and rumors).

Of course by the same token, most people who complain about passive-aggressive snipes are just overly emotional, simple minded trolls who want to derail the intellectually rational critiques of Age of Sigmar.

(see how that's done?)

Bishops finger
27-07-2015, 22:36
All I'm saying is if you like AOS you probably liked jar-jar Binks and the phantom menace...:shifty: just saying.. no criticism intended:shifty:

Theocracity
27-07-2015, 22:47
All I'm saying is if you like AOS you probably liked jar-jar Binks and the phantom menace...:shifty: just saying.. no criticism intended:shifty:

Implying that someone likes Phantom Menace is the passive-aggressive version of war crimes ;).

Ghal Maraz
27-07-2015, 23:12
Guys, stop quoting Vicis rant and start reporting his post instead. I know it's exactly what I'm doing.

ewar
27-07-2015, 23:13
Is it ok to admit liking bits of phantom menace :shifty:

Theocracity
27-07-2015, 23:17
Is it ok to admit liking bits of phantom menace :shifty:

...yes, I suppose. But keep out of trouble ;)

Tyranno1
27-07-2015, 23:22
...yes, I suppose. But keep out of trouble ;)

Co-mon, the Pod-Racing bit was pointless but fun, and the double-edged lightsaber duel was cool, but not a salvageable product :P.

Theocracity
27-07-2015, 23:30
Co-mon, the Pod-Racing bit was pointless but fun, and the double-edged lightsaber duel was cool, but not a salvageable product :P.

I think that despite our differences regarding Age of Sigmar, we can all come together as a community to agree that Episode 1 was two decent special effects set pieces embedded in an otherwise pointless waste of a Star Wars movie ;). (and that Ewan McGregor was well-cast even if the character of Obi-wan was sorely misused).

theunwantedbeing
27-07-2015, 23:32
Is it ok to admit liking bits of phantom menace :shifty:

Only if you admit to liking bits of Age of Sigmar :p

ewar
28-07-2015, 00:24
Only if you admit to liking bits of Age of Sigmar :p

I'll NEVER join you!
/anguish face

Edit: I'm starting to get nerd confusion now...

RandomThoughts
28-07-2015, 00:25
Perhaps AOS is Warhammer Episode 1...

Longstrider
28-07-2015, 01:09
It really does seem that what's happening here is that some commentors, who either like AoS or don't like AoS, can't state their opinion without suggesting people who differ from there are immature infants or hyper-aggressive jerks.

Surely we can all dial back that nonsense, right? I don't even like AoS - or rather, I'm thoroughly neutral on AoS but I don't like that 8th is gone. But it's not like wishing away AoS is any guarantee of ranked battle fantasy coming back, and why would you want to inflict the same anguish on those people who do like the game? The same goes for the other side - please understand that crowing about how you're glad WHFB is gone is just mean-spirited and unbecoming.

All of that is completely aside from actual critiques or discussion about the game mechanics, or what GW has done, or our experience, but all of those must be read in light of the fact that most of us only have limited experience and no serious data from which to draw conclusions.

One that I do want to touch on however, is this idea that we could have just played unstructured/player agreement/GM'd games in 8th. It's true, we could have. But most of us, I expect, didn't. It's not like we game independently of whatever the company is doing - the rules become norms that we take seriously at times. Consider this: all people like Hello Kitty and other comp writers (all of you doing some cool work) are doing is proposing we do exactly what we tell people they could have done under 8th - we can taylor the game as we see fit. Of course, I'm not doing it because I don't think actually doing playtesting and game balancing is fun - indeed, that's what we normally paid for the rules designers to do.

Given that the game rules are free, I'm not really surprised GW called it in when it came to balancing. I think it happens to be the wrong call because GW has, for close to three decades now, sold us the idea of playing relatively even points-based pickup games, and I don't think their particular players are going to switch over, nor do I think that's going to be eaasier for new players to get into. Of course course exceptions exist, but I expect that most people who are not already gamers (and this will already have an idea of whether they like or don't like points-balancing) will sour on it if they keep playing one-sided games. That latter seems likely to keep happening, as the variables are SO high between statlines, let alone summoning.

But you know, I could easily be wrong, and if that's so, then I wish them the best.

Shandor
28-07-2015, 01:28
The problem is that criticism of AoS often bleeds into passive-aggressive snipes about the maturity, experience, and other qualities of people who are enjoying it. That gets really old, really fast, especially when it crops up in threads that aren't intended for it (like news and rumors).

Of course by the same token, most people who complain about passive-aggressive snipes are just overly emotional, simple minded trolls who want to derail the intellectually rational critiques of Age of Sigmar.

(see how that's done?)

The same is True for the other side.

I take your time and make a long post of a honest Critism of AoS. I dont hate GW. Im a real GW fan. And still i dont like what they have done with AoS. Ive played it 15 times and lost interest really much.

And you get alot replays like "You dont even played the game" "Who cares just go away!" "Stop crying!" "WHF is gone life with it!" "You are just a GW Hater"
"You are just a Tournament powergamer we dont like you anyways" "All peoples that like WHF are Toxic Idiots" This gets old really fast too.

Finnigan2004
28-07-2015, 01:48
Perhaps AOS is Warhammer Episode 1...

It's Highlander Episode 2. Pretty sure that the planet Zeist is one of the Realms...

Still remember seeing the scene where they changed the whole Highlander storyline. If we're lucky, there will be a reboot of the reboot, like the Highlander t.v. series.

Theocracity
28-07-2015, 02:03
It really does seem that what's happening here is that some commentors, who either like AoS or don't like AoS, can't state their opinion without suggesting people who differ from there are immature infants or hyper-aggressive jerks.

Surely we can all dial back that nonsense, right? I don't even like AoS - or rather, I'm thoroughly neutral on AoS but I don't like that 8th is gone. But it's not like wishing away AoS is any guarantee of ranked battle fantasy coming back, and why would you want to inflict the same anguish on those people who do like the game? The same goes for the other side - please understand that crowing about how you're glad WHFB is gone is just mean-spirited and unbecoming.

All of that is completely aside from actual critiques or discussion about the game mechanics, or what GW has done, or our experience, but all of those must be read in light of the fact that most of us only have limited experience and no serious data from which to draw conclusions.

One that I do want to touch on however, is this idea that we could have just played unstructured/player agreement/GM'd games in 8th. It's true, we could have. But most of us, I expect, didn't. It's not like we game independently of whatever the company is doing - the rules become norms that we take seriously at times. Consider this: all people like Hello Kitty and other comp writers (all of you doing some cool work) are doing is proposing we do exactly what we tell people they could have done under 8th - we can taylor the game as we see fit. Of course, I'm not doing it because I don't think actually doing playtesting and game balancing is fun - indeed, that's what we normally paid for the rules designers to do.

Given that the game rules are free, I'm not really surprised GW called it in when it came to balancing. I think it happens to be the wrong call because GW has, for close to three decades now, sold us the idea of playing relatively even points-based pickup games, and I don't think their particular players are going to switch over, nor do I think that's going to be eaasier for new players to get into. Of course course exceptions exist, but I expect that most people who are not already gamers (and this will already have an idea of whether they like or don't like points-balancing) will sour on it if they keep playing one-sided games. That latter seems likely to keep happening, as the variables are SO high between statlines, let alone summoning.

But you know, I could easily be wrong, and if that's so, then I wish them the best.

Good post, and I agree on all counts - including the idea that GW probably shouldn't have gone as far as it did.


The same is True for the other side.

I take your time and make a long post of a honest Critism of AoS. I dont hate GW. Im a real GW fan. And still i dont like what they have done with AoS. Ive played it 15 times and lost interest really much.

And you get alot replays like "You dont even played the game" "Who cares just go away!" "Stop crying!" "WHF is gone life with it!" "You are just a GW Hater"
"You are just a Tournament powergamer we dont like you anyways" "All peoples that like WHF are Toxic Idiots" This gets old really fast too.

To be fair, your examples are less passive-aggressive and more straight-up aggressive :p.

I can't speak for others, especially as I've been making a (not entirely successful) effort to stay out of a lot of the Opinion threads, but from my perspective a lot of the pushback on the pro-AoS side stems from frustration at being constantly slammed. It seems like most of the AoS-friendly threads I have read (including this one) don't last much more than three posts before someone comes in acting like a jerk, even when the OP presents a balanced case that considers the game's limitations.

There are jerks on both sides, obviously, but it seems hard to believe for me that that kind of behavior would arise unprovoked - especially as AoS players don't have legitimate greivances regarding the death of their favorite game, as the anti-AoS players do. [insert 'welcome to the internet, enjoy your stay' comment here]

scruffyryan
28-07-2015, 04:09
I wonder if GW has hired a PR firm to troll threads where people are critical of their product. Thats a thing nowadays.

Captain Idaho
28-07-2015, 09:42
Lol but that would be recognition their product sucks!

Typo
28-07-2015, 10:42
It would also be recognition of the existence of an online community... I'm not sure which one is less likely :)

Pacman
28-07-2015, 14:40
I'm about to blow y'alls mind with this one. Brace yourselves -


Criticism of Age of Sigmar is not in any way an attack on people who enjoy Age of Sigmar.


No one needs to be defended from something that isn't about them.

Well said.

Anyone who does personally attack others because of their taste in games is obviously a dork, and should simply be ignored. We all engage in a bit of good-natured ribbing of each others' tastes at times, but let's remember that we're all just grown men and women playing with toy soldiers and shouldn't take ourselves too seriously.

Rick Blaine
30-07-2015, 11:49
I wonder if GW has hired a PR firm to troll threads where people are critical of their product. Thats a thing nowadays.

Seems GW's competitors have deeper pockets then, there's a lot more trolls in pro-AoS threads.

Captain Idaho
30-07-2015, 12:33
Nah we do it for free because we hate it.

No scorn like that of a spurned lover...

memitchell747
30-07-2015, 21:09
It looks like there is Paradise in Trouble. The local players (guys who taught me how to play 15 years ago) are working pretty hard on making the game competitive, and scaling back some of the most abusive stuff. And, finding there really is a game, there. They even like it! I'm skeptical, and praying they are wrong (I DO NOT want to get back into this hobby!). But, one of my buddies has gone from Hater to OK-er. If there is a game here, this will work. It wont fail, people wont quit in droves, WFB wont make a comeback, GW wont go out of business. Dammit, GW, stay out of my wallet!

DJElam
30-07-2015, 21:28
I've seen some pretty bad insults thrown around here over the last few days, so please let me say this:

While I personally consider AOS a failure as far as the game itself is concerned, I think there is an actual target audience out there that can and will enjoy the game, and everyone telling them they have the "wrong kind of fun" is not just wrong but also rude:217773
I'm not going to put AOS down as a game or anything, but there is a few things I'd like to say. And yes, this is only my view, but as someone who has spent thousands on games workshop merchandise, my view should count even if just a little.


1) The hobbyist: They like the models (or perhaps the fluff), it's what counts for them, the quality of the rules don't matter to them. Absolutely legitimate POV.217773None of this has changed really. New models and fluff have always been added to WHF. Quality of rules don't matter, really? The rules are one of the biggest part of any game, witch is what this is.


2) The light-hearted fun guys: Doesn't take gaming too serious, likes what AOS has to offer: Quick, fast, over-the top entertainment, a game that requires less effort and thinking and is more a spectacle where all kinds of goofy things happen. If that's what you want and the price of the models doesn't discourage you, go ahead, absolutely legitimate!217773I don't see how you can have a light-hearted fun game when there is no way to make the teams even. I don't know about you but I have no clue how many night-goblins wound be a fair fight for 6 ogres(witch is what I play). I don't like steam rolling my opponent or being steam rolled. There are always people that take winning too serious and you're not going to stop that by removing the balancing system.


3) People that like to make up their own rules and scenarios. Who need or want a general framework and nothing more and will do the rest themselves - and enjoy it! Again, absolutely legitimate!217773It's never stopped people in the past. I've helped people test play there own units and characters, helping them refine rules and points.


4) Kids in general. Limited funds, unable to purchase whole armies, might own a hodgepodge of random models that they still want to use in their games; more willing than us to accept the idea that the guy who got a dragonlord on a mighty dragon for christmas has a distinct advantage now over other players that do not - when I was that age Magic was just becoming popular, and for a teenager it was pretty much buy to win - you had the cards you could afford, either from random boosters or from trades with your mates, and that was it. 217773Ah the money. Have you looked at the prices lately? I don't know about you but the biggest reason I'm not spending much is because they jacked the prices up so much(this goes for 40k too). They are not trying to save anyone money by doing this. Ask yourself this, how much will it cost me to switch from square bases to round on all your modals?


So yeah, before insulting AOS-likers as braindead GW-zombies, perhaps take the time to ask them what they like about the game and why the things that bother us so much don't really bother them. 217773I'm not insulting AOS-likers, hey I don't even want to play it. Seems to have a few too many bugs atm, again that's my view. I am, however wondering where the game I liked to play and spent so much money and time on went.

Okuto
30-07-2015, 21:39
I just hate the current state of the fluff.....its completely alien to me right now. I can tolerate the shoddy ruleset, the questionable aesthetic, etc but the current fluff....is uninspiring to say the least.

I'm at peace with it now but its sad to see the old world turn into what it is currently, my forces have no place in it and I don't see me in it.

It needed to be done but I never imagined GW would of done in the manner it did.

Captain Idaho
30-07-2015, 21:42
It looks like there is Paradise in Trouble. The local players (guys who taught me how to play 15 years ago) are working pretty hard on making the game competitive, and scaling back some of the most abusive stuff. And, finding there really is a game, there. They even like it! I'm skeptical, and praying they are wrong (I DO NOT want to get back into this hobby!). But, one of my buddies has gone from Hater to OK-er. If there is a game here, this will work. It wont fail, people wont quit in droves, WFB wont make a comeback, GW wont go out of business. Dammit, GW, stay out of my wallet!

Your local players are wrong. They're working hard to create a workable game? Get out of it is this viable for a long term successful game. Everyone has to work hard creating a game replicated throughout the country? And what happens if I play someone out of your circle, who's rules do I use?

thesoundofmusica
30-07-2015, 21:47
Yeah house rules were totally unheard of before AoS!

Mateobard
30-07-2015, 21:51
Of course not. However, 8th edition could be run just fine out of the box, whereas AoS requires a ton of house rules in order to work at all.

Midnightcreed
30-07-2015, 22:00
I can only speak for myself but I am looking forward to creating an AoS army and I hope to see a whole new world of excellent novels and interesting fluff take root. Everything has to be new and I think it is exciting to be part of it. The fluff, the models and the game will evolve it people give it a chance - just like 40k did. When I looked to get into the hobby a few months ago the vast majority suggested 40k due to the smaller armies, better rules and more interesting background. It seems to me that GW paid attention to the majority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Captain Idaho
30-07-2015, 22:15
We'll see if hordes of customers follow your example.

Even funnier is whether GW just transfers sales from 40K to Fantasy.

big squig
30-07-2015, 23:39
Why is it that the folks who praise AoS always have like a 4 post history? Is that you Jervis? :)

jet_palero
30-07-2015, 23:53
I can only speak for myself but I am looking forward to creating an AoS army and I hope to see a whole new world of excellent novels and interesting fluff take root. Everything has to be new and I think it is exciting to be part of it. The fluff, the models and the game will evolve it people give it a chance - just like 40k did. When I looked to get into the hobby a few months ago the vast majority suggested 40k due to the smaller armies, better rules and more interesting background. It seems to me that GW paid attention to the majority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see how 40k has smaller armies than 8th WFB did. Sure some people (myself included) like hording up in WFB8th, but you can do that in 40k as well. If you want a really small army game, you should pickup something like warmachine or infinity. Or x-wing for super tiny.

HelloKitty
31-07-2015, 01:01
We are beginning our escalation campaign for AoS once our End Times is finished in september.

www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/BurningPeninsula.pdf

Dosiere
31-07-2015, 01:06
As someone who got into 40k after warhammer, I can assure you the investment in a 40k army is not much less than warhammer. Maybe it was once true, but while the model count is usually lower, there are a great many very expensive kits to buy and the price per model is much higher.

Rise99
31-07-2015, 07:34
Why is it that the folks who praise AoS always have like a 4 post history? Is that you Jervis? :)

I just made an account so my post count is low. I made it because for the first time, the game seems like it is in jeopardy. I don't know if that is an internet over-reaction or not, but AOS has me worried. That said, I think people should stop complaining about AOS an decide what to do about it. I really think the community needs to come together and create a new set of rules that can be widely accepted, but also follow GW in some respected so that WFB can continue to be a living game. The "9th age" stuff people are creating isn't going to fly.

Buddy Bear
31-07-2015, 07:38
Of course not. However, 8th edition could be run just fine out of the box, whereas AoS requires a ton of house rules in order to work at all.

There aren't many AoS fans in my area, but of those, all of them play with house rules. So if I were inclined to play AoS, I can't get a straight out-of-the-box game, because even the greatest local supporters of the game don't play it as-is. Meanwhile, I can get an 8th edition game without house rules at any time.

swordofglass
31-07-2015, 08:00
AOS has me worried.

It should - it signals the death of GW as a viable wargaming company. It has shown thousands of gamers, who were already frustrated with GW but kept playing because of nostalgia, brand loyalty, community spirit etc, that this company REALLY has no clue whatsoever, is completely incompetent and completely corrupt, and genuinely does not care about its customers or wargaming. AoS is not worth saving, it is not worth playing, it is so bad that it immediately makes spending any money on any GW product ever again a foolish notion. There is not one good thing about it. Everything concerning AoS is relentlessly depressing and soul-destroying, not least the mindless fanboys who insist on trying to defend this monumental insult of a product. It is the moment GW truly jumped the shark - there is no coming back for them now. Forget finecast, forget Eldar, forget price hikes - all credibility is gone, trampled, destroyed. It's fascinating that a major company has behaved in this manner.

Holier Than Thou
31-07-2015, 08:06
There is not one good thing about it.

You are completely mistaken good sir, there are 10 good things about it according to GW and gold spray paint is in the top 3 (oh, and there was only 9 things in their top 10 things they like about Age of Sigmar list.) Haha

Mudkip
31-07-2015, 08:18
I just made an account so my post count is low. I made it because for the first time, the game seems like it is in jeopardy. I don't know if that is an internet over-reaction or not, but AOS has me worried. That said, I think people should stop complaining about AOS an decide what to do about it. I really think the community needs to come together and create a new set of rules that can be widely accepted, but also follow GW in some respected so that WFB can continue to be a living game. The "9th age" stuff people are creating isn't going to fly.

I understand what you'r saying, but Age of Sigmar is not WFB so why should WFB vets support GW? WFB players have no reason to support a totally different game system just because the company decided to supplant WFB with it. If you liked the ranked-up mass battles aspect of WFB then AoS is not it's natural successor, whatever GW says. GW asking me to play AoS is like any other company asking me to try out a totally new game that I have absolutely no investment in. It's not like going from 7th to 8th edition.

Buddy Bear
31-07-2015, 08:27
Kings of War is a more valid successor to Warhammer Fantasy Battles than Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, just as Pathfinder was a truer successor to Dungeons & Dragons than D&D 4E.

memitchell747
31-07-2015, 17:24
Your local players are wrong. They're working hard to create a workable game? Get out of it is this viable for a long term successful game. Everyone has to work hard creating a game replicated throughout the country? And what happens if I play someone out of your circle, who's rules do I use?

You play anyway you wish. Who cares? The point isn't playing the game a certain way. The point is, there is a game here. One that is both viable and apparently enjoyable. For people who have been playing WFB for 20+ years. Which means the game's obituary is premature. And, telling people that think there is a game here that they are wrong, is factually wrong.

Skargit Crookfang
31-07-2015, 17:31
Much of this defense of AoS feels like a "lets point out character flaws in people who are ticked".

If you like it, cool. I have not said one bad word about the actual gamers who do. Some in my camp have, and that is not necessary. Our qualm is with GW, not fellow gamers.

That said, there is just as much rage towards those who dislike the system as there is towards people who do.

The community is split, but that was always going to happen.

EagleWarrior
31-07-2015, 18:16
I hate AoS. I think it doesn't come close to living up to the legacy of Warhammer fantasy, the story is boring and the rules are bad. I loved Warhammer and am really upset that corporate decisions and the arrogance of the GW leadership has taken down a game that means so much to so many people.

*BUT* that is no excuse for being rude to the people do like it. People are free to like what they want to, and it certainly wasn't their fault. If anything they should be applauded for staying positive and making the best of the situation we find ourselves in. I hope they can continue to enjoy the game and I wish them well.

Captain Idaho
31-07-2015, 18:19
You play anyway you wish. Who cares? The point isn't playing the game a certain way. The point is, there is a game here. One that is both viable and apparently enjoyable. For people who have been playing WFB for 20+ years. Which means the game's obituary is premature. And, telling people that think there is a game here that they are wrong, is factually wrong.

This makes little sense. There is a game here, if we completely change all the rules and make it up ourselves?

Well in that case there is a game playing with tins of beans and cans of coke instead of models.

If I pay someone to develop a game for me and I have to do it all myself, then I'm being ripped off.

If I want to build my own game I would.

Captain Idaho
31-07-2015, 18:29
Yes, there is a game here, but it's so rubbish and worthless we may as well make our own up.

In practical terms, that means there isn't a game there.

Theocracity
31-07-2015, 18:30
If I pay someone to develop a game for me and I have to do it all myself, then I'm being ripped off.

Remind me again what part of AoS's rules you paid money for.

Edit: Nevermind, I see you corrected yourself.

Captain Idaho
31-07-2015, 18:42
The models are paid for and part of the game.

swordofglass
31-07-2015, 18:43
Well in that case there is a game playing with tins of beans and cans of coke instead of models..

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?411537-Warhammer-Pews-amp-Pings

Warhammer: Pews & Pings is fully compatible with tins of beans and cans of coke.

ooontrprzes
31-07-2015, 18:52
Kings of War is a more valid successor to Warhammer Fantasy Battles than Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, just as Pathfinder was a truer successor to Dungeons & Dragons than D&D 4E.

Y'know, considering D&D came out of Chainmail, a strategic miniatures game, and was then bastardized by TSR post-Gygax, and then re-bastardized by WOTC later, and then ret-conned extensively for 5th edition, I feel this point may be a little convoluted.

Holier Than Thou
31-07-2015, 19:01
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?411537-Warhammer-Pews-amp-Pings

Warhammer: Pews & Pings is fully compatible with tins of beans and cans of coke.

I'm speechless. That is fantastic, I was p***ing myself reading it.

Theocracity
31-07-2015, 19:26
The models are paid for and part of the game.

That's a pretty weak argument, considering that you can buy the models without playing the game and play the game without buying the models.

Let's just agree that your point about cost was a brain fart mistake that, in an ideal world, I would have never seen prior to your editing :p

Captain Idaho
31-07-2015, 19:32
To be fair, I was driving (well parked in traffic and intermittently moving - I'm not a COMPLETE ***** lol) and don't rightly even remember making said edit ;)

But I think the main reason to not elaborate on my subsequent comment is because the notion of GW profitability based on game vs miniatures, and whether one dramatically decreases without the other, is a complex off topic debate!

Gonefishing
31-07-2015, 19:39
Last time I played WFB I was 16, I'm now 38 - so after a 22 year gap its fair to say I am unaffected by any sort of rage on this one .... But I do understand the anger.

I was (was being the operative word) a 40K player until 6th was released, and we did not have an end times or any warning, GW just flipped the switch and utterly changed the direction 40K had been going for the last 20 odd years. 40K was not rebranded, it was not given another name, and the models were not discontinued...but it may as well have been for many of us, because the game and direction of travel was so radically different to what had been before. So I understand the anger, I felt it myself in that situation, and for WFB players its far, far worse, as you guys don't even get the "illusion" of continuance anymore, its AOS or bust.

I do agree though, that there is nothing wrong with liking AOS. If your someone for whom that product works, and it fulfils your gaming requirements then all power to you. From what I have read however, if your an actual gamer (ie, not a hobbyist, or a collector, or a "narrative" player ... or more expansively, someone with a dedicated gaming group who enjoy / accept house ruling the product into oblivion) AOS is not going to be for you, in the same way that 40K is no longer for me.

At the end of the day GW has made a decision that they no longer want the "Gamer" market, everything they have released, done and said in the last 3 years has told us that repeatedly - if your a gamer, your the wrong type of customer. It's not a decision I understand, as from a business perspective, as for me its a very simple equation:


Great models --------->Profit
Profit <--------- Great games
Great models ---------.>Most Profit-<--------Great games

But that's the business decision they have made, and nothing we do or say will change it. So if you like AOS great, if you hate it - then from a personal perspective, sorry. But frankly - your not GW's target market for this one (or any of their other products). That's it really, there is no funky bit - there is no point in hating on the people who like it, their enjoyment is completely legitimate, and likewise there is no point in defending it, because those who it has left behinds disenfranchisement is also completely legitimate - but we could all just accept that and be nicer to each other.

Personally I now play Dropzone, GW gets none of my money, and that's their choice :)

HammerofThunor
31-07-2015, 19:47
@gonefishing, nice post :)

RandomThoughts
31-07-2015, 19:50
Why is it that the folks who praise AoS always have like a 4 post history? Is that you Jervis? :)

While I appreciate the humor, I think you actually touch upon a vital point here: AOS seems designed to target new players that have not been active tabletop players before. If that approach is indeed successful, then naturally the fans would be new to the hobby and thus have new accounts with no previous post history, right?

RandomThoughts
31-07-2015, 19:55
Responding to a few posts (without wanting to single any one specific out), I think one can both loath the game itself and accept that it may be fun for someone else. I tried to list a few groups of people that I can see enjoying the game in the OP. It doesn't matter if all of them are equally valid for Warhammer 8th. The people enjoying AOS are not responsible that Warhammer was discontinued. It doesn't matter if they could enjoy 8th as much. They are enjoying AOS, they have the right to enjoy AOS, and that's where the story ends.

If you want to be mad an anyone, be mad at the people in charge of the game at GW. If you want to voice your frustration with the game, do so, but not by insulting the people who have a different opinion, please!

And just for reference, I'm one of the most unrepentent GW bashers here on the board, so...

Captain Idaho
31-07-2015, 19:56
That's a valid point but there certainly doesn't seem to be many of them eh...

Sothron
31-07-2015, 20:01
Kings of War is a more valid successor to Warhammer Fantasy Battles than Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, just as Pathfinder was a truer successor to Dungeons & Dragons than D&D 4E.

This is an excellent point. WotS betrayed me as a 3.5 player so badly that I went to Pathfinder and have never, ever looked back at D&D. Pathfinder, I might add, is also freaking awesome with gobs of lore, background and inspiration as a player to use. The exactly opposite of AoS.

Razhem
31-07-2015, 20:16
4) Kids in general. Limited funds, unable to purchase whole armies, might own a hodgepodge of random models that they still want to use in their games; more willing than us to accept the idea that the guy who got a dragonlord on a mighty dragon for christmas has a distinct advantage now over other players that do not - when I was that age Magic was just becoming popular, and for a teenager it was pretty much buy to win - you had the cards you could afford, either from random boosters or from trades with your mates, and that was it.

217773
HAHAHAHAHA!

Oh wow what you people will believe...

Or said kids could blow 100$ on Malifaux and get either 2 foll crews or a full crew with extra minions/enforcers/henchmen to round up and play full value games from the get go.

Or they could buy one of the thousands of awesome board games out there that give fantastic bang for your buck. Lets stop acting like if AOS was the only product in the market and like if miniature gaming has a whole had not evolved huge leaps compared to what GW understands as gaming.

Overtninja
31-07-2015, 20:32
Anyone who expects people who actually like AoS to have any success discussing the game on this, or any other WFB board that exists on the internet, is going to be sadly disappointed. This forum, dakkadakka, the warhammer forum, and every faction-specific board has become essentially a disenfranchised community who have been orphaned by the discontinuation of a game system which some of the members have been playing in some form or another for literal decades. There is no room for expressing enjoyment, understanding, meaningful discussion, or any other sentiment on these boards, whose communities are rightly furious about this turn of events, and since their hobby cannot continue in a supported way, the community stands to disintegrate or fracture - which makes it even more venomous.

If people want to actually discuss AoS, they are going to have to find their own board for it, because it's really unlikely they are going to find any welcome in any existing board, at least for the near-term. Maybe when most of WHF's existing fan base leaves for other hobbies and gets tired of venting, but certainly not before.

Katastrophe
31-07-2015, 20:37
While I appreciate the humor, I think you actually touch upon a vital point here: AOS seems designed to target new players that have not been active tabletop players before. If that approach is indeed successful, then naturally the fans would be new to the hobby and thus have new accounts with no previous post history, right?

Or they are shills, which I suspect is more likely.

Overtninja
31-07-2015, 20:46
This is an excellent point. WotS betrayed me as a 3.5 player so badly that I went to Pathfinder and have never, ever looked back at D&D. Pathfinder, I might add, is also freaking awesome with gobs of lore, background and inspiration as a player to use. The exactly opposite of AoS.

Pathfinder's got some issues too (having to plan your character from lvl 1, the munchkin-level of expected gear drops to be viable, general imbalance between classes mechanically, etc), but it's certainly crunch-heavy and a miniatures game, which is satisfying if you prefer those kinds of things in your RPG. It's a good system, certainly, that I played for many years.

In some respects, I think the difference between Pathfinder and 5th edition is an apt analog between WFB and AoS - the former in both cases was very crunch-heavy, and much of the enjoyment of the game lies in fully understanding the sprawling, complex, and multi-layered ruleset and how all it's parts interact, and operating within those rules for maximum potency. The latter is a loose framework with pretty simple rules in which most everything can be fudged, the walls between what can and can't be done are very loose, and the system largely exists as a storytelling device where all involved can enjoy the experience of play rather than concentrate on comprehensive game mechanic usage.

Both systems are good at what they do, but the methods they employ towards providing fun are very different. I like them both, but there are plenty who like one and not the other for various reasons, and that's pretty okay really.

Overtninja
31-07-2015, 20:47
Or they are shills, which I suspect is more likely.

Haha jeez are you from /tg? Is this board going to go that route now?

Sothron
31-07-2015, 21:07
Or they are shills, which I suspect is more likely.

This. 10 characters.

Sothron
31-07-2015, 21:18
Anyone who expects people who actually like AoS to have any success discussing the game on this, or any other WFB board that exists on the internet, is going to be sadly disappointed. This forum, dakkadakka, the warhammer forum, and every faction-specific board has become essentially a disenfranchised community who have been orphaned by the discontinuation of a game system which some of the members have been playing in some form or another for literal decades. There is no room for expressing enjoyment, understanding, meaningful discussion, or any other sentiment on these boards, whose communities are rightly furious about this turn of events, and since their hobby cannot continue in a supported way, the community stands to disintegrate or fracture - which makes it even more venomous.

If people want to actually discuss AoS, they are going to have to find their own board for it, because it's really unlikely they are going to find any welcome in any existing board, at least for the near-term. Maybe when most of WHF's existing fan base leaves for other hobbies and gets tired of venting, but certainly not before.

This is a good post. I wish they mods would make an AoS sub forum so the few people who actually like that game for some reason could go and talk about it away from the real Warhammer discussion.

Kyriakin
31-07-2015, 21:38
Anyone who expects people who actually like AoS to have any success discussing the game on this, or any other WFB board that exists on the internet, is going to be sadly disappointed. This forum, dakkadakka, the warhammer forum, and every faction-specific board has become essentially a disenfranchised community who have been orphaned by the discontinuation of a game system which some of the members have been playing in some form or another for literal decades. There is no room for expressing enjoyment, understanding, meaningful discussion, or any other sentiment on these boards, whose communities are rightly furious about this turn of events, and since their hobby cannot continue in a supported way, the community stands to disintegrate or fracture - which makes it even more venomous.

If people want to actually discuss AoS, they are going to have to find their own board for it, because it's really unlikely they are going to find any welcome in any existing board, at least for the near-term. Maybe when most of WHF's existing fan base leaves for other hobbies and gets tired of venting, but certainly not before.
IIRC I wasn't a big fan of some of your posts before, but this balanced, fair and pretty much on the money.

Skargit Crookfang
31-07-2015, 21:41
This is a good post. I wish they mods would make an AoS sub forum so the few people who actually like that game for some reason could go and talk about it away from the real Warhammer discussion.

warhammer.org did this, and it's been far more amicable there, since. Hell, they even host one of the main 9th age forums as a sub within the WHFB forum, and with AoS as it's own forum.

It's really let the two sides of the debate some breathing room from one another.

Theocracity
31-07-2015, 21:44
Or they are shills, which I suspect is more likely.

It's instructive to see who posts in a "criticize the game, not its fans" thread with the sole purpose of criticizing the fans.

scruffyryan
31-07-2015, 23:40
Haha jeez are you from /tg? Is this board going to go that route now?
Its actually pretty big business for PR firms to send employees onto boards to talk up product/tear down people critical of products they're representing.

Flipmode
31-07-2015, 23:51
Its actually pretty big business for PR firms to send employees onto boards to talk up product/tear down people critical of products they're representing.

Someone would pay me money to point out if people are talking rubbish?

I missed my calling.

scruffyryan
01-08-2015, 01:17
Someone would pay me money to point out if people are talking rubbish?

I missed my calling.

Bear in mind most of the time they're hired by industry interests to promote things like fracking in town X. Therefore usually hired to obfuscate issues and talk rubbish themselves but yeah, its a real thing that has gotten quite large in PR firms in the past decade or so.

Skargit Crookfang
01-08-2015, 02:14
Someone would pay me money to point out if people are talking rubbish?

I missed my calling.

It's huge. Even political parties in Canada and the USA have staffers who do this on news stories posted on journalistic websites. Control the message, control the outcome.

Theocracity
01-08-2015, 02:19
Bear in mind most of the time they're hired by industry interests to promote things like fracking in town X. Therefore usually hired to obfuscate issues and talk rubbish themselves but yeah, its a real thing that has gotten quite large in PR firms in the past decade or so.

We might want to take a step back and ask ourselves, based on the available evidence, (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?412212-GW-Top-Ten-quot-Why-We-Like-AoS-quot) whether it's at all likely that GW hired any sort of PR firm to handle AoS.

Oil companies and political parties GW is not.

Buddy Bear
01-08-2015, 03:05
Agreed. GW management seem too self-important to even consider the idea, because in the bubble universe they occupy everything they do is met with resounding applause from every quarter, making the idea of needing to shape public opinion ludicrous.

RedKnightSpecial
01-08-2015, 03:36
This is an excellent point. WotS betrayed me as a 3.5 player so badly that I went to Pathfinder and have never, ever looked back at D&D. Pathfinder, I might add, is also freaking awesome with gobs of lore, background and inspiration as a player to use. The exactly opposite of AoS.

4th ed best ed

Really though, even if you hate 4th (I love it) I wouldn't compare it to AoS. 4th was certainly WAY different than what came before, but it was well thought out and well supported and the rules worked. AoS is a cynical cash-grab that sacrifices everything about the setting and the goodwill of the loyal players for the chance at squeezing some more money out for the shareholders.

Sothron
01-08-2015, 06:17
4th ed best ed

Really though, even if you hate 4th (I love it) I wouldn't compare it to AoS. 4th was certainly WAY different than what came before, but it was well thought out and well supported and the rules worked. AoS is a cynical cash-grab that sacrifices everything about the setting and the goodwill of the loyal players for the chance at squeezing some more money out for the shareholders.

I'll be honest, I don't mind a more narrative RPG combat system like Fantasy Flight used for Warhammer 3rd ed or the excellent Star Wars current editions RPG (Age of Rebellion, etc) but 3.5 was excellent at a more tactical combat system. Pathfinder IMO has the best tactical RPG rules out there. WotS going from that to the way more narrative 4th edition was just bogus.

But yes, it still is not the complete dagger in the back AoS is and my anger for that is many times over what I felt over the change from 3.5 to 4th.

RandomThoughts
01-08-2015, 06:21
Agreed. GW management seem too self-important to even consider the idea, because in the bubble universe they occupy everything they do is met with resounding applause from every quarter, making the idea of needing to shape public opinion ludicrous.

Have you not read the preamble for the new financial report yet? The new CEO explicitly states that there is a noisy minority that they need to ignore to satisfy the silent majority of their fanbase that want exactly what GW is producing.

Overtninja
01-08-2015, 07:31
To be fair, several hundred angry posters on various boards is a fraction of the number of actual players, hobbyists, and collectors that form GW's customer base, and if they have the numbers in front of them to support their position, that's all they need. It is true that most online discussions center on criticism rather than praise, because criticism provides more fertile ground for discussion and argumentation. GW probably isn't too concerned with the outpouring of negative reactions from forums that have, for the entire lifespan of the hobby, been a haven for people to discuss their negative reactions to everything that GW has done or will do. They likewise are not concerned with the tournament player, and haven't been for like a decade, and they aren't concerned with people who want really crunchy rules, because they intentionally don't have those for the game. They recognize that there are other markets that people will go to and play with them - and many of them will take their GW miniatures there to play those other games with.

GW is actually acting like a miniatures company here in that they are finally being clear that they don't care what you do with your minis after you buy them, because they are yours now. You can play any games you want with them and that's fine - except in their store, where they want you to use their miniatures so you can showcase them to others, which is reasonable for them as a miniatures company to do.

Wether this pans out remains to be seen, but it's clear they are going very far out of their way to make sure that no one thinks of them as a game company any more, so they can concentrate on creating and selling cool minis.

Kyriakin
01-08-2015, 07:41
Someone would pay me money to point out if people are talking rubbish?

I missed my calling.
No, you would have to shoot down ALL criticism, whether rubbish or not.

The government in China openly does it on the big Chinese discussion centres.

scruffyryan
01-08-2015, 07:57
To be fair, several hundred angry posters on various boards is a fraction of the number of actual players, hobbyists, and collectors that form GW's customer base, and if they have the numbers in front of them to support their position, that's all they need. It is true that most online discussions center on criticism rather than praise, because criticism provides more fertile ground for discussion and argumentation. GW probably isn't too concerned with the outpouring of negative reactions from forums that have, for the entire lifespan of the hobby, been a haven for people to discuss their negative reactions to everything that GW has done or will do. They likewise are not concerned with the tournament player, and haven't been for like a decade, and they aren't concerned with people who want really crunchy rules, because they intentionally don't have those for the game. They recognize that there are other markets that people will go to and play with them - and many of them will take their GW miniatures there to play those other games with.

GW is actually acting like a miniatures company here in that they are finally being clear that they don't care what you do with your minis after you buy them, because they are yours now. You can play any games you want with them and that's fine - except in their store, where they want you to use their miniatures so you can showcase them to others, which is reasonable for them as a miniatures company to do.

Wether this pans out remains to be seen, but it's clear they are going very far out of their way to make sure that no one thinks of them as a game company any more, so they can concentrate on creating and selling cool minis.

They should probably rebrand as Miniatures Workshop then.

Denny
01-08-2015, 08:07
They should probably rebrand as Miniatures Workshop then.

They are rebranding their stores as 'Warhammer'.
Perhaps they will ultimately rebrand the company too.

Deadhorse
01-08-2015, 08:19
To be fair, several hundred angry posters on various boards is a fraction of the number of actual players, hobbyists, and collectors that form GW's customer base.

True, a fraction of people buying a product go on the internet to talk about it, though in the case of hobby products that number is probably greater. I submit that:

- let's count the vocal minority, shall we? This saturday morning Warseer has 1000 users online, but it also says most users ever online was 6,914. So one forum, thousands of people. I know there are national Warhammer forums in nearly all European countries, I know that there are army-specific forums like Carpe Noctem. I know there are the popular global forums like Dakka Dakka, Warseer, TWF. The posters and lurkers on these forums are actually quite numerous, definitely not the majority of GW's customers, but dissmissing them offhand as having little to no impact on sales is wishful thinking by Kirby.

- there is no reason to believe that the tastes of those who post on the interent differ significantly from those who don't.

- why are all the companies that have embraced a completely different philosophy (WMH, XWing) growing rapidly, while GW is shrinking?

I understand online hobby communities are prone to nerdrage and other excess, but simply saying 'these are some crazy clueless neckbeards, our actual customers want minis not rules, don't mind the prices at all and decide to get into the hobby by reading our brochures rather than the Internet" is insane.

scruffyryan
01-08-2015, 08:41
True, a fraction of people buying a product go on the internet to talk about it, though in the case of hobby products that number is probably greater. I submit that:

- let's count the vocal minority, shall we? This saturday morning Warseer has 1000 users online, but it also says most users ever online was 6,914. So one forum, thousands of people. I know there are national Warhammer forums in nearly all European countries, I know that there are army-specific forums like Carpe Noctem. I know there are the popular global forums like Dakka Dakka, Warseer, TWF. The posters and lurkers on these forums are actually quite numerous, definitely not the majority of GW's customers, but dissmissing them offhand as having little to no impact on sales is wishful thinking by Kirby.

- there is no reason to believe that the tastes of those who post on the interent differ significantly from those who don't.

- why are all the companies that have embraced a completely different philosophy (WMH, XWing) growing rapidly, while GW is shrinking?

I understand online hobby communities are prone to nerdrage and other excess, but simply saying 'these are some crazy clueless neckbeards, our actual customers want minis not rules, don't mind the prices at all and decide to get into the hobby by reading our brochures rather than the Internet" is insane.


Nerdrage about products literally only matters when there's no alternative. Miniatures wargaming is not one of the formats that has no alternative.

Denny
01-08-2015, 08:57
There is no reason to believe that the tastes of those who post on the interent differ significantly from those who don't.

There is also no reason to believe that those who post on the internet are representative of those who don't.

Warseer might be 100% representative. It might not. No research has been done in this field (as far as I know . . .) and therefore, scientifically, there is no reason to assume Warseer is representative of Wargamers in general.

Again, I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but my academic background is in statistics and these sort of assumptions are a pet peeve. ;)

Deadhorse
01-08-2015, 10:11
There is also no reason to believe that those who post on the internet are representative of those who don't.

Warseer might be 100% representative. It might not. No research has been done in this field (as far as I know . . .) and therefore, scientifically, there is no reason to assume Warseer is representative of Wargamers in general.

Again, I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but my academic background is in statistics and these sort of assumptions are a pet peeve. ;)

Part of my job is research, so I understand the point. I also know that many key business decisions are made with insufficient data, based on reasoning and intuition rather than facts.
I don't know of any research done by GW conserning customer needs, so my assumption is the whole "vocal minority" is the chairman's brainchild rather than somethin proven by data. And I would say that it is more reasonable to assume opinions of the internet community are in some way indicative of what customers may think, rather than completely opposed to it.

Captain Idaho
01-08-2015, 12:26
So the financial report from the chief executive tells us that there's a vocal minority they need to ignore? So they're telling the truth then? He wouldn't be saying that to the shareholders and stock market just to cover toxic response from the consumer base, surely?

Obviously...

If Age of Sigmar is doing so well, I do wonder why my local toy store that sells our town's GW and other hobby kits has sold ZERO copies of Age of Sigmar?

Obviously doing really well in my area eh.

thesoundofmusica
01-08-2015, 12:49
I think I'll wait for next years financial report, but thanks for any and all anecdotal evidence :rolleyes:

Captain Idaho
01-08-2015, 13:28
Yeah, disregard it if you like. All I can point to you is my local shop has sold nothing. I've even asked about it. The toy staff don't care about the product because they are there to sell other toys too. They just point out GW sent them the AoS starter set and so far no one has bought one.

Wait until the financial report by all means. Do you really think, with the declining sales of 40K etc that all of a sudden this release will break the bank with success?

thesoundofmusica
01-08-2015, 14:22
I didnt read it thoroughly but I think the last report said profits were up. And the claims of GW's demise have been going on as long as the internet... yet they are still here.

Captain Idaho
01-08-2015, 15:42
I think you need to reread it:

http://investor.games-workshop.com/2015/07/28/annual-report-2/

1st page shows the facts and figures. Revenue down last year.

Don't read his explanation, read the figures.

Shipmonkey
01-08-2015, 16:12
I think you need to reread it:

http://investor.games-workshop.com/2015/07/28/annual-report-2/

1st page shows the facts and figures. Revenue down last year.

Don't read his explanation, read the figures.

Might I suggest you read what thesoundofmusica wrote and then review the figures yourself? According to the link you posted, operating profits are up this year, just as he said.

Captain Idaho
01-08-2015, 16:21
Yes but operating profits doesn't mean they're making more sales. Their revenue is down. Their revenue is down after a massive year in 40K including the release of Adeptus Mechanicus!

Operating profits being up means they're not haemorrhaging money. They're making money off their business. The revenue being down says they're not making as many sales.

frankelee
01-08-2015, 16:24
Profits went up, revenue went down. That's a little thing called living success in success in success.

Holier Than Thou
01-08-2015, 16:25
How has the profit increased if the revenue is down? Surely the only explanation is through cost-cutting which cannot continue indefinitely. If revenue steadily declines and they run out of ways to cut costs then the profit will start to disappear.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have a background in business and so I wouldn't claim to be an expert but that is how I would read that report.

Captain Idaho
01-08-2015, 16:26
So it's interpretation of what the current position of the company is (or was last year). GW made more money out of what it sold last year. Is that what success is? Or is a decline in sales and revenue reduction despite major releases indication of the company struggling?

What is the long term position?

Buddy Bear
01-08-2015, 17:10
A company which is financially sound doesn't cut its stores down to 1-man operations and then institute a pay freeze.

Captain Idaho
01-08-2015, 17:15
Well said.

Profits being up but revenue down is NOT an indication to a successful business, folks.

My main question will be when will we see a larger company buy GW out.

Buddy Bear
01-08-2015, 17:21
That's my personal hope. I'd be thrilled if someone like Fantasy Flight Games got some investors together and bought GW out.

Captain Idaho
01-08-2015, 17:38
If only I got that big Euro Lottery win...

HelloKitty
01-08-2015, 17:43
If ffg bought out gw and turned its games into things like xwing with armies that are basically 10 models and prepainted models id be done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Buddy Bear
01-08-2015, 18:23
Because Age of Sigmar is so much better. :rolleyes: Whatever the case, I'll never understand why people think that just because one company buys another that it means that everything the purchased company will now do will be identical to what the purchaser does. That defeats the whole purpose of buying the new company in the first place. The point is to do something different. There's no need to go out and buy a new company just to do more of what you're already doing. If anyone buys GW, it'll be because they think they can do what GW does, but better and more profitably ... or to break it into pieces. The likelihood is that any purchaser would want it as-is and install new management, though.

HelloKitty
01-08-2015, 18:25
Age of sigmar may not be so much better but i am repelled by most of ffg games because they are the polar opposite of what interests me.

If ffg were to hypothetically buy the 40k ip of course no one would know how that would be but based on all of ffg existing products its a fair comparison to theorize.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ooontrprzes
01-08-2015, 18:46
I'll give FFG this, they seem to handle licenses rather respectfully, and often, and have a history with the IP already through rpgs, relic, discwars, etc. I don't think it would happen in a million years, but they'd probably do it the best.

Charistoph
01-08-2015, 19:01
Age of sigmar may not be so much better but i am repelled by most of ffg games because they are the polar opposite of what interests me.

If ffg were to hypothetically buy the 40k ip of course no one would know how that would be but based on all of ffg existing products its a fair comparison to theorize.

Rules-wise, I think it will be an improvement. Consistency and clarity, even if less than FB or 40K in quantity would be refreshing.

However, the story character and model lines would take a hit. The puns and tongue-in-cheek aspects are as much of the fun as the modeling and gaming.

Kurgan Ironbeard
01-08-2015, 19:06
I'm enjoying it a lot, had a full game today and it lasted as long as a normal 40k game whilst a normal game of fantasy would barely of gotten past turn 2 or 3.

ihavetoomuchminis
01-08-2015, 19:14
If ffg bought out gw and turned its games into things like xwing with armies that are basically 10 models and prepainted models id be done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Youd be done if FFG had released AoS. But as is GW who has done it....

thesoundofmusica
01-08-2015, 19:18
Youd be done if FFG had released AoS. But as is GW who has done it....

That's not really what he said, which of course I think you know.

ooontrprzes
01-08-2015, 19:25
Rules-wise, I think it will be an improvement. Consistency and clarity, even if less than FB or 40K in quantity would be regreshing.

However, the story character and model lines would take a hit. The puns and tongue-in-cheek aspects are as much of the fun as the modeling and gaming.

hmm... now that you mention it the writing (world and fluff-wise) has always been pretty bare-bones from FFG. I guess that's been the beauty of working with licenses for FFG- somebody already did that heavy lifting.

Andy p
01-08-2015, 19:36
I find it amusing in a strange sort of way that many people on these forums are so aggressive with each other. I wouldn't dream of telling a bunch of WRG7th edition ancients players that their version of the game is s*** and that they are ****** and then try to justify (my entirely subjective) opinion by saying that my preferred version (WRG 6th) is the 'best' version. And then attack the WRG publishers for no longer supporting 6th?

I and my mates like AoS, don't need a forum of strangers to tell me that it's rubbish. They aren't right. Beauty and the eye of the beholder and all that.
Wonder what frothing rage this live and let live attitude might attract?

Dave

Human race baby! If it disagrees shout at/kill and/or cook & eat it. Everyone knows opinions are just words, except they aren't because everyone also knows they are worth going to war over.

What you are seeing here is the microcosm of the entire species, repeated endlessly across digital binary so that overly-emotionally-charged dislike can be expressed through the personalised scope of ones self in order to tell everyone about it's importance.
Nothing that can be done about it, we cannot survive without that urge.

HelloKitty
01-08-2015, 20:11
Youd be done if FFG had released AoS. But as is GW who has done it....

If FFG released Age of Sigmar I'd postulate that we'd get a point system (this is good) and in return, forces would be about 10-15 models a side at most played on a board like Imperial Assault is with special FFG dice, and sheets of cardboard tokens you'd need to play.

The models would also likely be flimsier plastic and prepainted and the narrative would be distilled to a paragraph here and there, making the game basically be 99% the game, and 1% the world and lore.

So I'd be happy for the points system and would be driven off by the board game aspect, the sheets of cardboard tokens, the special FFG dice, and the low scale of the game which is not what I am interested in. I'm also not interested in a game for the sake of the game with no or little narrative. Thats why I play board games, not why I want to play tabletop miniatures games.

Thats speculation of course that it would be like all of their other games which are like that.

Now if FFG pushed out the exact same mirror image thing that GW did called Age of Sigmar, I'd still buy in. The nonsense that I am only buying it because GW pushes it out is about as fluffy a strawman and inserting words into my mouth as one can get, since I do play Armada, was playing xwing until the meta made me get bored of it, and play in our battletech group as well so playing Non-GW games is surely not something I have a problem with.

Captain Idaho
01-08-2015, 21:04
I don't care who released this travesty of a game; I'm not buying it at all.

I won't even buy GW models from them any more, as I'm annoyed and exercising my power as a consumer.

rmeister0
01-08-2015, 21:13
hmm... now that you mention it the writing (world and fluff-wise) has always been pretty bare-bones from FFG. I guess that's been the beauty of working with licenses for FFG- somebody already did that heavy lifting.

Their rules aren't always the paragon of virtue and clarity either. Not to mention 10,000 counters, tokens and markers that would come in the box.

Before X-Wing FFG had a dismal history with miniatures including Confrontation, AT-43 and Dust. Now all those were manufactured by other companies with problems of their own, but their abortive pre-painted version of Mutant Chronicles, IIRC, was all their own travesty.

After market support for their games is also shaky and games can go a long time without any communications. We've finally got some expansions to the BattleLore armies and a new one on the way, but for a long time after 2nd ed came out it looked abandoned.

Charistoph
02-08-2015, 02:28
Their rules aren't always the paragon of virtue and clarity either. Not to mention 10,000 counters, tokens and markers that would come in the box.

Still, clearer and more consistent than GW rules tend to be. GW rules-writing is almost as bad as Calvinball (http://calvinandhobbes.wikia.com/wiki/Calvinball) or Marshgammon (http://how-i-met-your-mother.wikia.com/wiki/Marshgammon). (Though, admittedly, AoS feels a lot like Calvinball and Four-Square in some areas.)

ooontrprzes
02-08-2015, 05:53
Oh god, the counters! I've completely repressed all memory of the counters! *rocks back and forth* "my game will never be complete, never complete, I lost a thing, I just know it!" (we typically replace all those with our own color-coded dice, usually an easy fix for most of it)
Yeah, ok. Maybe FFG isn't exactly perfect either. They seem to be on an upswing, though, and I've always liked their stuff by and large. I guess all I was getting at is at this point I would probably be more likely to try a FFG license of a GW property than an in-house production, if that makes sense. All the counter-points regarding FFG have been very valid, however. I suppose it's all sort of irrelevant, anyways, but lively conversation at any rate. Cheers to you all!

RandomThoughts
02-08-2015, 12:14
Rules-wise, I think it will be an improvement. Consistency and clarity, even if less than FB or 40K in quantity would be refreshing.

Less consistency and clarity than 40K is your ideal? I quit 40K, among other things, because those two were in the basement...


forces would be about 10-15 models a side at most

The models would also likely be flimsier plastic and prepainted and the narrative would be distilled to a paragraph here and there, making the game basically be 99% the game, and 1% the world and lore.

And THIS HERE is exactly what this thread is about. People who enjoy AOS (or GW games in general) because they provide something they enjoy. Here it's battle size, model quality, thinkness of lore. Why exactly is Kitty in the wrong if he says those are the things he values and those are the things taht keep him playing GW games?

ooontrprzes
02-08-2015, 13:25
Less consistency and clarity than 40K is your ideal? I quit 40K, among other things, because those two were in the basement...



And THIS HERE is exactly what this thread is about. People who enjoy AOS (or GW games in general) because they provide something they enjoy. Here it's battle size, model quality, thinkness of lore. Why exactly is Kitty in the wrong if he says those are the things he values and those are the things taht keep him playing GW games?


Actually the sentiment was, more consistency and clarity at the expense of quantity would be worth it (is my understanding, anyway). And no one said they were wrong for liking the things they enjoy. Unclench, fella.

thesoundofmusica
02-08-2015, 13:51
And no one said they were wrong for liking the things they enjoy. Unclench, fella.

Someone did pull a oneliner with the sole intent of making Kitty look stupid by purposefully twisting his words...

rmeister0
02-08-2015, 15:37
I will certainly agree that FFG has done more interesting things with GW's stuff than GW has. I played Warhammer Invasion card game and it was decent. I've got Warhammer DiscWars and I had fun with it, especially for the cost.

AngryAngel
02-08-2015, 19:27
Someone did pull a oneliner with the sole intent of making Kitty look stupid by purposefully twisting his words...

I would point out the Irony of someone seeking to make a person with the handle HelloKitty look stupid by twisting their words.

ooontrprzes
03-08-2015, 01:46
Someone did pull a oneliner with the sole intent of making Kitty look stupid by purposefully twisting his words...

Well, than that was uncalled for. Allow me to clarify- I Didn't say they were wrong. I shouldn't speak for others. Apologies.